












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Library of Congress 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

OFFICIAL DONATION. 

..II1..SLE.7 

Shelf _i_:.J.3_D0 














REPORT 


State pee and Salary Commissi( 

TO THE 

Sixty-Second General Assembly 

OF THE 


STATE OF INDIANA. 


AUTHORIZED BY ACT APPROVED MARCH 3, 1899 




TIMOTHY E. HOWARD, 
AMERICUS C. DAILY, 
WILLIAM A. WILKINS, 

Commissioners. 


INDIANAPOLIS: 

WM. B. BURFORD, CONTRACTOR FOR STATE PRINTING AND BINDING. 









THE STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

Executive Department, V 

May 31, 1900. J 

Received by the Governor, examined and referred to the Auditor of State for 
verification of the financial statement. 


Office of Auditor of State, } 
Indianapolis, May 31, 1900. / 


The within report, so far as the same relates to moneys drawn from the State 
Treasury, has been examined and found correct. 


W. H. HART, 

Auditor of State. 


June 1, 1900. 

Returned by the Auditor of State, with above certificate, and transmitted to 
Secretary of State for publication, upon the order of the Board of Commissioners 
of Public Printing and Binding. 

CHAS. E. WILSON, 

Private Secretary. 


Filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, June 1, 
1900. 


UNION B. HUNT, 

Secretary of State. 


Received the within report and delivered to the printer this 1st day of June, 
1900. 


THOS. J. CARTER, 

Clerk Printing Bureau. 









I. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


To the Governor and General Assembly of the State of Indiana: 

Your State Fee and Salary Commission, Timothy E. Howard, of 
South Bend; Americus C. Daily, of Lebanon; and William A. Wilkins, 
of Indianapolis, appointed by the Governor as he was directed to do, 
by an act approved March 3, 1899, herewith submits a report of its 
inquiry and recommendations conceiming fees and salaries, together 
with a bill relating thereto. 

The act, under which this Commission pursued its inquiry, directed 
it to 

‘^Trocure from State, county, township and other public officers of 
this State all information pertaining to all fees and salaries, which by 
any statute of the State are allowed or prescribed for any State, 
county, township or other public officers; to procure from the tax¬ 
payers of the several counties of the State their opinions, views and 
whatever facts they may have relating to fees and salaries in their 
respective counties; to procure further, from any and all sources, 
information, facts and figures that may be deemed necessary in form¬ 
ing and arranging a comprehensive, fair and equitable adjustment of 
all fees and salaries to be paid State, county and other public officers 
of the State. It shall be the further duty of the State Fee and Salary 
Commission to systematize all information, facts, figures, opinions 
and views thus obtained, and to digest them, tabulate and arrange 
them under proper heads and classifications by counties, and officers 
of said counties, giving therein all fees and salaries now allowed by 
law to the State, county, township and other public officers, and when 
so systematized, digested, tabulated and arranged, the said State Fee 
and Salary Commission shall submit a report thereof to the Sixty- 
second General Assembly.” 


- 5 - 










s ’’ 


^ - 

f A ^ 

ili-.‘*':v»- -'I 

• " >'• ■ !"■ y '. 

>*■ ' ■ 1 .* ■' 

sis • 







\-M'‘ 








™ *•■ 


Va ^ 




■.;^- A V -v.^ 




>■' ■■■■' ^ 

;!*5v ■EliL*^ ■ • -. 


S- , 

I***' ' 


if 1 


-V', ;*a',,.- '•.■■'■ 

• > V V-i i.;V '^ -;•. ■■*. 

B ■ ’ir>'-% 


' Ati ' 


1* J 


K.-/ 


VTA 


<% 




V; 


■"- r. 


*'■*'■ A':’ ;v •'*'> » HHiir~\^Kl 

Ir^.’,, v'^'' '‘^ ' ' J ■^'A-'l''' V Ai ' 

■ 1,^''^'.' . 'VH;'’, ,A A L,. •■ ' -a '-Jj!;'. .‘,'“«1» Afc: " ■■■*‘^‘ T ^ 


■■ A*.-' ’.''/Rt!.- ' ' •■ ’ll;* • 

. * * » . ‘ ’At. , - k MT • ’ 

•* L ' < %1% k > ... ^ * • vift-. 


■: .# 




.. -.'A?,.. 

' ■-■■‘^'4 ' “w :■'■ -.jC,' if ■ ‘ in V' *--J,v nf^MF) '* a' V . ■ Wk > i? 

wl'^ ■ '• f • .>'*'" A*‘» " ,•*.!*•'..fi»‘»£7 ♦ ‘ i W; 1 

Km.^RSX^HBLv « « •^ « Iff a*- 


} r 








JC-, 







A?I;;ac-:-'.-. -5 r 

'\M‘ ‘‘i ' .■■-•i'l'-?; ■ 

J'i' ■- : ■- 1 . ''..I 

"^■' '- ■'•'■■ ff A' “ 

. . ‘.“if -t 

»r^A' • i-.- ' 



T.« .r - 


,>*■ AA: :•'. 

' ff **• '. -v, -•' 

. ♦K‘»r :; >k ' .. 

■■ ■‘'^T , T • 








Vii^v' ■ . ' 

1 


IP, ^'■*' 


ri. 




:A 






r% 


1* • 4 *AlJ * ■ * •!♦ ■» 


At ^ 




I . 


#■ /.'AcV4*>. 




^ 'i 


, j _ 


f' ya.MA apt#- 


If 


fktii 


"‘^- 4* ■•■ *.* 


^f? 

i • V 


f * 






‘ i' 


%sr; 







A** 



■•-•ir’M-r.’' 



ORGANIZATION. 


Upon the appointment of the Commission by the G-ovemor im¬ 
mediately after the law became operative, a question arose whether 
the Commission could organize and begin its work at that time in face 
of the proviso in Section 1 of the act which reads: 

^^Provided that the Clerk of said Commission shall only serve from 
July 1, 1899, to March 1, 1901/^ 

The question was submitted to the Attorney-General, who sent to 
the Commission the following opinion: 

“It seems to me, from an examination of the act under which the 
Commission serves (Acts of 1899, p. 255), that the members of the 
Commission serve as members from the date of their appointment, 
which must have been made immediately upon the taking effect of 
this law—April 27, 1899. 

“It seems to me that the second proviso to Section 1 simply means 
that the Clerk shall only serve, upon a salary of $1,200, from July 1, 
1899, to March 5, 1901. 

“It seems equally clear to me, that the board shall meet and organ¬ 
ize and lay out work for the Clerk to do prior to July 1, 1899, when his 
duties as Clerk and his salary commence. 

“1 see no reason why the Commission should not organize and pro¬ 
ceed without a Clerk until that date.” 

The question as to its right to organize and begin its work previous 
to July 1, 1899, being thus authoritatively removed, the Commission 
met May 25, 1899, and electing Timothy E. Howard President, pro¬ 
ceeded to fulfill its duties, the results of which are given in detail in 
the several sections of this report. 

It was first contemplated to extend the inquiry by personal visita¬ 
tion and examination of all the county officers, from whom informa¬ 
tion was desired, but after experimenting with that method, covering 


- 7 - 



8 


a dozen counties or so, it was evident that it would only put the Com¬ 
mission in the possession of a mass of detail of little use and com¬ 
plicate the work. It was decided, therefore, that the visitations, when¬ 
ever necessary or desirable in securing information, should be left 
to the Judgment of the Clerk of the Commission. The informa¬ 
tion obtained by personal visitation was very much the same in all 
the counties except as to local conditions affecting services rendered. 
The inquiry, therefore, was for the most part conducted through the 
mail, the returns being voluminous and complicated. To analyze 
these returns so as to present them in systematic and comprehensive 
relation to each other has required months of careful and arduous 
calculation. 


FEES AND SALARIES IN OTHER STATES. 


The Commission having no Indiana precedent, except fee and sal¬ 
ary" legislation of the past, upon which to base its proceedings, sought 
guidance from other States, but in every case the response to our in¬ 
quiries was unsatisfactory. No uniform rule as to fees and salaries 
existed anywhere, the methods of compensating State and county offi¬ 
cers varying from all fees, through part fees and part salary, to fixed 
salary and no fees. As illustrative of this line of inquiry we give the 
following relative to fees and salaries in other Stated: 

ALABAMA. 

All State officers including Supreme Court and Circuit Court 
Judges, Chancellors, Solicitors of Judicial circuits, receive fixed sal¬ 
aries. They are prohibited by the State Constitution from receiving 
fees from any and all sources. All county officers receive fees fixed by 
statute, except the County Treasurers, they generally receive salaries 
paid by the county. There are no township officers except trustees of 
the public schools who receive no compensation. County officers^ fees 
are fixed for each item of service rendered. The County Superin¬ 
tendent of public schools receives a commission upon the amount of 
money handled, the commission being paid by the State out of the 
school fund. 



9 


ARKANSAS. 

All State officers are paid salaries. All county officers are paid fees 
except, perhaps, in eight or ten counties, where part of the officers are 
paid salaries and part fees. Officers, both State and county, are pro¬ 
hibited by law from depositing funds in banks. In those counties 
where salaries are paid they are graded somewhat according to popu¬ 
lation and services to be performed, but there is no definite rule. 


CALIFORNIA. 

With two or three exceptions all county officers are salaried, and 
their fees go into the county salary fund. C!!ounty Treasurers are not 
permitted to loan their county funds to banks for the purpose of se¬ 
curing interest but many deposit with the banks. 


COLORADO. 

The salaries of the State officers are all fixed by'law. They are 
specific and no fees, whatever, are allowed to ^y of the officers. Sal¬ 
aries of county officers are also fixed by law, and are not paid out of 
fees collected by them. The State Treasurer does not receive the 
benefit of the interest on any public money. The State funds are 
loaned to the various banks throughout the State and they pay about 
2| per cent, interest on the same, and said interest is placed to the 
credit of the “Interest on Deposit'^ fund by the State Treasurer for 
the benefit of the State. ‘ 


CONNECTICUT. 

State officers have salaries. County officers have salaries, excepting 
Clerks, who have fees, but the advisability of paying them salaries is 
being considered. Town officers generally receive per diem, excepting 
in some of the larger towns which pay a yearly salary. Probate 
Judges, Justices of the Peace, and Clerks of courts are paid by fees. 
In no case are salaries contingent upon fees earned. The compensa¬ 
tion of county officers is graded according to population and services 
rendered. County and State Treasurers are not allowed the use of 
interest on public money on deposit. 


IDAHO. 


Previous to 1899 county officers were paid part salary and part fees, 
but in February of that year the Legislature passed a bill regulating 
salaries of county officers according to services required, the salaries 
being fixed by the County Commissioners. No officer, State or county, 
gets the benefit of interest on public funds. The salary law was tested 
before the Supreme Court by the county officers, the decision being in 
favor of the bill and debarring the County Commissioners from fixing 
their own salaries, these remaining as per statute. 

ILLINOIS. 

The salaries of all the elective State officers are fixed by law, and are 
not contingent upon fees received by said officers. The fees received 
by the State officers are accounted for and paid into the State Treas¬ 
ury. County officers are also salaried officers, but in most all cases the 
salaries of the county officers are contingent upon the amount of fees 
collected by such officers. The salaries of county officers are graded, 
in most cases, according to the population of the county. In the case 
of township officers most all of them receive a per diem compensa¬ 
tion fixed by law. In all cases where County and State Treasurers 
receive interest on public funds, the interest, if any is received, is 
retained by the Treasurers. There is no provision of law authorizing 
funds to be deposited in the bank or loaned direct from the Treasury 
for the benefit of the county or State. 


KANSAS. 


County officers are salaried, as are the State officers; all fees col¬ 
lected by the latter are turned into the Treasury at the end of each 
month and the only compensation received by them is the regular sal¬ 
ary fixed by law. Township officers receive a per diem of $3.00 for 
the time actually employed. The law requires all State funds to be 
kept in the vault of the State Treasuiw, but provides that the 
county funds may be placed in local banks, which is usually done, 
and a small rate of interest is paid thereon. This interest becomes 
a part of the county general fund. 


11 


KENTUCKY. 

All State officers are paid salaries. The State also pays the Cir¬ 
cuit Court Judges and Commonwealth Attorneys salaries. The Com¬ 
monwealth Attorneys, in addition, get 50 per cent, of all fines and 
forfeitures in the Circuit Courts. County Attorneys are paid salaries 
by the county, and get 25 per cent, of the fines in the circuit and 
lower courts. Salaries are not contingent on the fees earned. The 
compensation of county officers is graded according to population and 
services required, in so far that in counties of over 75,000, the com¬ 
pensation of Judges and Circuit Court Clerks is fixed at $5,000, to he 
paid out of the funds earned by the office. Treasurers, both county 
and State, are expressly prohibited from getting interest on deposits 
from banks or elsewhere. County judges are paid salaries, and also 
get fees in felony cases for holding examining courts throughout the 
State. 


MINNESOTA. 


All State officers are paid fixed salaries except the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court and the Governor’s Private Secretar}^ who receive 
fees in addition to salary. State boiler inspectors, surveyors of logs 
and lumber and oil inspectors get all fees received for full compensa¬ 
tion for their offices. Nearly all county officers are paid fixed salaries 
usually based upon the population and taxable valuation. Sheriff, 
Clerk of Court, Eegister of Deeds, and County Surveyors are usually 
given the fees received in full compensation. Township officers are 
nearly always upon a fee basis, or are given a per diem while on public 
business. The State Treasurer does not receive for himself any in¬ 
terest on deposit of public funds. County Treasurers receive such 
interest in the absence of other special regulation. 


MARYLAND. 


The Governor, Comptroller, Treasurer, etc., are paid certain stip¬ 
ulated salaries fixed by law, while other State officials, as State’s AG 
tomey. Clerks of Courts, Eegisters of Wills, Notaries Public, etc., 
are paid from fees to the amount of $3,000, and in some instances, as 
in Baltimore City, $3,500, the balance of such excess of fees being re¬ 
turned annually to the State Treasurer. No State officials are allowed 
interest on public money. 


12 


MISSISSIPPI. 

State officers receive fixed salaries with all fees paid into the State 
Treasury. County officers receive fees except Chancery Clerk, who 
receives fees and salary as does the County Auditor. State and County 
Treasurers derive no benefit from interest on public funds. 

MISSOURI. 

All State officers receive fixed salaries, all fees earned by them being 
turned into the State Treasury. Certain officers appointed by the 
Governor, such as excise commissioners and coal oil inspectors, receive 
fees. County officers all receive fees with the exception of the County 
Attorney and County Treasurer, who receive both salary and fees. 
The clerks of courts receive fees, the amount they are entitled to re¬ 
tain being based upon population and the excess, if any, is turned into 
the county treasury. Sheriffs receive fees exclusively, and are not 
limited as to amount the}^ may retain. Assessors receive fees for tak¬ 
ing lists and making assessments books, which are paid in equal por¬ 
tions by the State and county. Judges of probate and surveyors re¬ 
ceive fees. Judges of the county court receive a per diem paid out 
of the county treasury. Judges of the circuit courts are paid salaries 
by the State, with certain allowances for expenses when holding court 
at places other than their places of residence. Judges of the courts 
of appeals and supreme court receive salaries. The treasurers. State 
and county, do not get the benefit of interest on public funds, such 
funds being deposited with banks paying the highest rate of interest 
on daily balances, and such interest goes into the treasury. All town¬ 
ship officers are paid fees. 


JUONTANA. 


The salary system prevails in this State, no fees being allowed offi¬ 
cers, but all fees collected are part of the State and county funds. 
Salaries of the county officers are based on the classification of the 
county, and the class of the county is adjusted according to tax valua¬ 
tion. The treasurers, both State and county, are not expected to 
receive interest on funds in their hands, nor does the law designate 
the disposition of these funds. 


13 


MAINE. 


Some of the county officers are paid salaries fixed by law, bnt 
most of them are paid by fees, such as clerks of courts, registrar of 
deeds and sheriffs, supposed to he in accordance with the responsi¬ 
bility of the office and time employed. The officers of towns, select¬ 
men and assessors are paid per diem when employed, the amount be¬ 
ing fixed by the town. State and County Treasurers do not get the 
benefit of interest on deposits, such benefit accruing to the State or 
county. State officers are paid salaries. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

State and county officers are paid salaries, and the State and 
County Treasurers are not supposed to receive interest from funds 
banked by them. In the case of the County Treasurers the salaries 
are only nominal, the banks doing all the clerical work in return 
for whatever profits they may derive from the county deposits. County 
salaries are based on population and tax valuation. 

NEW YORK. 

There is no uniform system in this State regarding compensation of 
State, county and township officers. AVith few exceptions the State 
officers, clerks and employes are paid stated salaries, either annually 
or so much per day or month. There are no State officers whose sal¬ 
aries are contingent upon fees except the Health Officer of the Port 
of Xew York, in which case the salary and all other expenses of the 
department are paid from fees collected. There is no uniform law 
regulating the interest on public funds, as to whether the official, or 
the county or municipality shall receive the benefit. The cities and 
counties have, in many instances, special laws regulating this matter. 
All fees, penalties, duties, etc., for all State officers or boards, are re¬ 
quired to be paid into the State Treasury monthly, and all expense? 
of these departments are paid on the warrant of the Comptroller, for 
which appropriations are made. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

All State officials receive salaries, supplemented in one case, namely. 
Secretary of State, by fees. County officers are paid fees, the Sheriff 
and Treasurer receiving in additon five per cent, on amounts collected 


14 


by them, but the per cent, of Treasurers varies in different counties on 
the amount received and disbursed. Interest on State funds in banks 
is turned into the Treasury. County Treasurers, in some cases, have 
the benefit of interest. 


OHIO. 

In this State, State and townshi]) officers are paid salaries; county 
officers salaries and fees. State and County Treasurers are not allowed 
the use of public money on deposit in banks or elsewhere. 


OREGON. 

Xo regular fee and salary system prevails. It is the rule to allow 
the legislative delegations, elected from each county, to fix the salaries 
of the officials in their respective counties. The salaries of Governor, 
Secretary of State and Treasurer are fixed by the Constitution and 
cannot be changed. Thus, all State officers receive fixed salaries with 
the exception of the State Printer, but the Secretary of State and the 
State Treasurer receive certain fees. The funds in the hands of the 
State and County Treasurers are not loaned for the benefit of the 
State or count}^, but are entirely in the custody and under the control 
of those officers. The compensation of County Clerks, Kecorders and 
Coroners, was, prior to 1894, based upon fees. Since that year all 
county officers with the exception of Coroner receive fixed salaries. 
Clerks and Eecorders are allowed a fee of 10 cents per folio for certi¬ 
fied copies of the records of their respective offices. Township officers 
receive fees and. per diem. 


PENNSYLVANIA. 


County officers are paid out of the fees except in counties having 
more than 150,000 inhabitants. The fees, however, are contingent 
upon certain conditions. Thus, after deducting office expenses and 
clerk hire and $2,000 allowance for county officers, all in excess of the 
above is divided between the Commonweath and officers in equal parts. 


RHODE ISLAND. 


All salaries are fixed by action of the General xlssembly, and are 
not based on fees, in part or otherwise. 


SOUTH DAKOTA. 


All State officers are paid stated salaries, the only exception being 
that of Clerk of the Snprenie Court, whose compensation comes from 
fees. ]\Iost of the county officers have their salaries fixed according to 
population or assessed valuation of the county, and in some instances 
the salary is fixed and the officer is allowed to retain fees up to the 
maximum salary, the fees in excess of which are turned into the 
County Treasury. The Constitution of this State makes it a felony 
for any State, county, city, town or school district treasurer to use or 
make any profit out of public funds. In 1897 the Legislature passed 
an act permitting banks to bid for deposits of county funds, and where 
money was so deposited the interest accrued to the benefit of the 
county; but there has been very little money deposited in that way, 
and the State has never received any benefits from its deposits. 


TENNESSEE. 


All county officers are paid stated salaries based on fees of the office. 
All State officers are on salary, and any interest arising from the funds 
deposited in the banks goes to the State and County Treasuries. 


TEXAS. 

State officers are paid salaries fixed by the Constitution or statutes, 
and county officers are paid salaries contingent on fees according to 
population and necessary services. 


X'EKMONT. 

All State officers are salaried with the exception of the Insurance 
Commissioners, who retain 40 per cent, of certain fees collected by 
them from insurance companies, ddiere are many boards, commis¬ 
sions and other officers drawing pay from the State Treasury upon a 
per diem basis. The County Examiner, County CommissioneT, Asso¬ 
ciate Judges and County Clerks are paid by tlie State, and are sub¬ 
stantially upon a per diem basis, except that the County Clerk gets 
certain fees contingent upon certain business transacted in his office 
The compensation of the Sheriff is wholly contingent upon the work 
which he does, and is paid by litigants who employ him, except the 
State pays his charges in criminal cases. All township officers are 
paid per diem. 


16 


AVISCONSIN. 

All the State officers are paid fixed salaries. County officers^ in the 
majority of counties, receive fixed salaries, while others, such as 
Registrar of Deeds and Sheriff, receive the fees. Township officers 
generally receive per diem. The salaries seem to be graded according 
to the wealth and population of the counties. The County of Mil¬ 
waukee pays the largest salaries and has entirely abolished the fee sys¬ 
tem, becanse an officer was able to make from $20,000 to $25,000 a 
year, wffiile now his salary has been fixed at $5,000 a year. In some of 
the northern and newer counties a salary of two or three hundred dol¬ 
lars a year is amply sufficient for the amount of labor required. State 
Treasurers formerly received the interest on deposits, but the Supreme 
Court determined that the Treasurers were not entitled to this interest, 
and compelled ex-Treasurers to refund the amounts which they had so 
received. In counties the Treasurers still retain the interest on county 
funds. 


AVASHINGTON. 

All State officers are salaried, as are the county officers, their sal¬ 
aries being fixed by statutes according to classification of counties. 
The salaries are not contingent upon fees. Towmship officers, as a 
rule, are paid all fees. Neither the State nor the County Treasurers 
are allowed to make profit out of funds held by them. 

AA'EST AGRGINIA. 

The compensation of State, county and township officers is, for the 
most part, through fixed salaries, although the laws allow certain fees. 
Allowances to county officers are arbitrarily fixed by the statute; that 
of the Sheriff, however, who is also ex-officio Treasurer, is merely 
nominal, as he is allowed a commission on all funds collected. Both 
the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Clerk of the County Court are 
allowed salaries from $200 to $1,200 per annum with certain fees. No 
official receives any interest on State deposits. A number of State 
and National banks are designated by the Board of Public Works as 
State depositories in which the State funds are deposited and these 
institutions pay into the State Treasury an annual interest of three 
per cent, on the daily balances, said interest being payable quarterly. 


II. 


NOTES OF FORMER LEGISLATION AND DECI¬ 
SIONS OF THE COURTS IN RELATION 
TO FEES AND SALARIES. 


Under the territorial governinent of Jndiana, beginning with July 
4, ISOO, and also under the Constitution of 1816, extending from that 
date to the adoption of the Constitution of 1851, there was but little 
system or uniformity in the laws relating to the fees and salaries of 
public officers. The jDrovisions concerning compensation for public 
services were, to a great extent, scattered through the various statutes 
prescribing the duties of the several officers. 

The Attorneys-General of the Territory were at first paid sixty dol¬ 
lars a year, and afterwards one hundred dollars. The Judges of the 
General Court, corresponding to our Supreme Judges, were paid seven 
hundred dollars per year. Other officials were given like compen¬ 
sation. 

Under the Constitution of 1816, by an act approved February 7, 
1831 (E. S. 1831, p. 246), fees were provided for various officers, 
named in the act, in the following order: Clerk of the Sujireme 
Court, Clerk of the Circuit Court, County Sheritf, Jurors, witnesses. 
Prosecuting Attorney, Coroner, Recorder, Secretary of State, Attor¬ 
neys, Surveyor, Justice of the Peace and Constable. In the same act 
a salary of twelve hundred dollars was provided for the Governor, to 
be ^hn full for all his services as Governor, and in full for all house 
rents.^^ A per diem of two dollars, with eight cents mileage, was ])ro- 
vided for members of the General Assembly, including the President 
of the Senate and Speaker of the House. 

By another act passed at the same session (E. S. 1831, p. 85)), the 
Auditor of State, then known as Auditor of Public Accounts, and the* 


2—F. AND S. Com. 


-17- 



Triuisurer of State, v^ere each allowed a salary of four hundred dol¬ 
lars a year, payable quarterly, on the-first days of March, June, Sep¬ 
tember and Deceniher. The Supreme Judges under the Constitution 
of 1816 at first received a salary of eight hundred dollais a year. 

By an act approved January 21, 183T (K. S. 1838, p. 302), the salary 
of the Governor was iiicreased to fifteen hundred dollars; that of the 
Judges of the Supreme Court also to fifteeii hundred dollars; the pre¬ 
siding Judges of the Circuit Court to one thousand dollars; and the 
per diem of members of the General Assembly to three dollars, with 
three dollars mileage for each twenty-five miles traveled. 

By Section 11, Chapter 59, of the Revised Statutes of 1843, all acts 
and parts of acts regulating fees and salaries then in force were con¬ 
tinued, except as modified in that Revision. 


COMPENSATION OF COUNTY OFFICERS. 


In numerous instances, however, the compensation of county offi¬ 
cers was regulated by special acts, relating either to one or more offices 
or to one or more counties. By an act approved January 5, 1850, the 
Auditor, Treasurer and Collector of Delaware and Randolph counties 
were required to report annually to the Board of County Commis¬ 
sioners of their respective counties the amount of fees, perquisites, 
salaries and percentage of their respective offices. The amounts so re¬ 
ported were declared to be a fund for the payment of said officers, out 
of which five hundred dollars salary should be allowed to each, pro¬ 
vided the inconie of his office amounted to so much. The overplus, if 
any, was declared to constitute a part of the county revenue. By an 
act of January 19, 1850, County Commissioners of the counties of 
Knox, Kosciusko and Randolph were authorized to allow the Probate 
Judges of their respective counties any sum not exceeding one dollar 
per day. By an act of the same date the Commissioners of Johnson 
County were authorized to pay the Clerk a sum, not exceeding two 
hundred dollars, annually for services performed by him as Auditor, 
in addition to Auditors fees for such services. The office of County 
Auditor had been abolished in that county by an act approved Janu¬ 
ary 14, 1846. By another act of the same date, the County Board of 
the County of Parke was forbidden to allow the Clerk of that county 
more than one hundred dollars for extra services annually, or the 
Auditor more than seventy dollars. By an act approved January 18, 
1850, the Auditor of ]\liami County was allowed five hundred dollars a 
y'ear, but was authorized to collect fees for the county which might 


19 


be applied on Ids salary, the fees to he reported to the County Hoard 
By an act approved February 1‘3, 1851, a special statute regulating the 
salary of the Auditor of Putnam County, which had been approved 
February 11, 1848, was repealed, and it was declared that the general 
laws of the State regulating the fees and salaries of County Auditors 
should thereafter apply to the County of Putnam. 

By Section 22, Article IV, of the Constitution of 1851, it was pro¬ 
vided that the General Assembly should not pass local or special laws 
in certain enumerated cases, one of which was, “^Gn relation to fees 
-and salaries.’^ 

In conformity with this requirement of the new Constitution, the 
Legislature, by an act approved June IG, 1852 (R. S. 1852, 280), pro¬ 
vided for a general system, of fees and salaries for officers named in 
the following order: Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Circuit 
and Common Pleas Courts, County Sheriff, Secretary of State, County 
Recorder, County Auditor, County Treasurer, County Commissioners, 
County Surveyor, Prosecuting Attorney, Constable, jurors, witnesses, 
Votary Public, Coroner and township officers. This statute was evi¬ 
dently modeled upon that of 1831. The fees allowed the several 
officers did not differ materially from those provided for in the older 
statute, nor indeed from those set out in various acts since passed. 
The allowances to the Auditor to be paid out of the County Treasury 
were limited to eight hundred dollars, and those to- the Treasurer 
to one thousand dollars. 

By Section 25, of an act approved J une 17, 1852, providing for the 
■organization of County Boards (R. S. 1852, 224), the Commisdoners 
were authorized to allow to the Clerk, Sheriff and Auditor an annual 
compensation for extra services, not exceeding one hundred dollars 
each. This provision for extra services was re-enacted in the act ap¬ 
proved March 2, 1855, but without the limitation to one hundred dol¬ 
lars (Acts 1855, p. 101). The limitation was, however, restored in 
1861 (Acts 1861, p. 37). See Board v. Potts, 10 Ind. 286, and Board 
V. Johnson, 31 Ind. 463. Vo costs could be collected in criminal 
causes where the defendant was acquitted. That has always been the 
law. The State is never liable to pay fees. Board v. Blake, 21 
Ind. 32. 

By a general act approved ]March 2, 1855 (Acts 1855, p. 101, 1 G 
A H. 328), the act of June 16, 1852, was repealed, and the fees of the 
officers revised in some particulars; but tlie same general plan of com¬ 
pensation for services are retained. The limitation as to amounts to 
be paid to the County Auditor and County Treasurer was not re- 


20 


enacted in this statute, and those officers were consequently permitted 
to collect their fees in full from the county. 

By an act approved March 5, 1859 (Acts 1859, p. 174, 1 G. & H., 
p. 539), certain salaries were fixed for the various State officers which 
were declared to be in full for all their services, and those officers were 
required to pay over into the State Treasury all fees collected by them. 
By this act the salary of the Governor was fixed at three thousand dol¬ 
lars; that of the Treasurer of State, three thousand dollars; Auditor of 
State, two thousand five hundred dollars; Secretary of State, two 
thousand dollars; Superintendent of Public Instruction, thirteen hun¬ 
dred dollars; Judges qf the Supreme Court, each two thousand dollars; 
Judges of the Circuit Court, each fifteen hundred dollars; Prosecut¬ 
ing Attorney, five hundred dollars, with fees. 


RADICAL DEPARTURE. 

A radical departure in fee and salary legislation was attempted in an 
act approved February 21, 1871 (Acts 1871, p. 25). In this statute the 
former tables of fees, with some modifications, were re-enacted for the 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, Secretary of State, County Eecorder, 
Prosecuting Attorney, Constable, Justice of the Peace, jurors, ^vit- 
nesses, Xotary Public, Coroner, Township Trustee, Surveyor, Clerk of 
the Circuit Court, Sheriff, Auditor and County Commissioners. 
It was provided, however, that all fees collected by the Auditor should 
be paid into the County Treasury on the first Monday of each month. 
The Clerk also and the Sheriff were required to pay into the Treas¬ 
ury on the first Mondays of December, March, June and October all 
fees collected by them respectively. At the several last mentioned 
dates the Treasurer was required to file with the Auditor a sworn state¬ 
ment of the condition of the County Treasury. The Clerk, Sheriff, 
Auditor and Treasurer were each allowed a salary of fifteen hundred 
dollars, to be paid out of the County Treasury. In counties having a 
population greater than ten thousand. Clerks and Sheriffs were also 
given an annual allowance for deputy hire of one hundred dollars for 
each thousand, or fraction thereof over five hundred, for all popula¬ 
tion in excess of such ten thousand. Clerks and Sheriffs were given, 
besides, 20 per cent, of all fees collected by them respectively and paid 
into the County Treasury; and in counties having Criminal or Su¬ 
perior Courts they were given a further annual allowance of nine hun 
dred dollars for deputy hire in each of said courts. The Auditor, in 


21 


addition to his salary of fifteen hundred dollars, was, in counties hav¬ 
ing a population greater than ten thousand, given an annual allow¬ 
ance for deputy hire, of one hundred dollars for each thousand, or 
fraction thereof over five hundred, for all population in excess of such 
ten thousand. He was also allowed to retain the fees and commissions 
for services arising out of the management of the school fund, and 
fees for transfers of land. The Treasurer, in addition to his salary of 
fifteen hundred dollars, was, in counties having a population greater 
than ten thousand, given an annual allowance for deputy hire of 
seventy-five dollars for each thousand population over such ten thou¬ 
sand; he was also allowed to retain fees for collecting delinquent taxes. 
The allowances for salary and deputy hire were to he made quarterly 
by the County Board, payable out of the county officers’ fund created 
by the payment of fees into such fund; but the Clerk and Sheriff 
were not to receive any allowances exceeding the amounts paid into 
the Treasury respectively by them, except that where all the fees of 
either of said officers should not amount to a thousand dollars the 
Board might allow to the officer an amount out of the County Treas- 
• ury not to exceed three hundred dollars in any one year. It w^as ex¬ 
pressly forbidden in this act that any county officer should be em¬ 
ployed to perform any service or special duty for the county, not by 
law j)rescribed as a part of his duties, unless the same should be per¬ 
formed without fee or reward. 


VALIDITY OF ACTS TESTED. 

The validity of the fee and salary act of 1871 was brought before 
the courts for decision, in the cases of Wallace v. Board, 37 Ind. 383, 
and Bulk v. Board, 46 Ind. 150. In those cases the validity of the act, 
so far as the taxation and collection of fees was concerned, was upheld; 
but in the first case the Judges of the Supreme Corirt were equally 
divided as to the validity of that part of the act requiring the payment 
of fees into the County Treasury, and as to the question wliether the 
act was not in violation of Section 22, Article IV, of the Constitution, 
forbidding local or special laws in relation to fees and salaries. In the 
second case a majority of the court held that so far as the act provided 
for payment of salary to the Sheriff out of fees paid by him into the 
County Treasury (and the same would be true as to the Clerk), it was 
in violation of said Section 22, Article IV, for, as the court held, some 
•officers would get their full salaries and some would not, according 


22 


as the fees paid into the Treasury by them might or might not be 
equal to such salaries. 

Following these decisions, the Legislature, by an act approved 
March 8, 1873 (Acts 1873, Eeg. Sess., p. 119), provided that all com¬ 
pensation to the officers named should be in fees or percentages, ex¬ 
cept that the County Board was authorized to make an annual allow¬ 
ance, not to exceed three hundred dollars, to the County Auditor. 
The County Treasurer was to be paid wholly by certain percentages of 
taxes collected by him and of other moneys of the county. 


THE ACT OF 1875. 

Again, by an act approved March 12, 1875 (Acts 1875, Sp. Sess., 
p. 31), another elaborate fee and salary law was passed. In this act the 
Legislature returned to the plan of paying a salary to the County Au¬ 
ditor and County Treasurer. The Auditor was allowed fifteen hun¬ 
dred dollars a year; and, in case the population of the county was over 
fifteen thousand, a further allowance of one hundred and twenty-five 
dollars for each thousand in excess of such fifteen thousand, also one 
hundred dollars for making reports to the Auditor of State, besides 
fees due from individuals and one per cent, for managing the school 
fund. The Treasurer was allowed a salary of one thousand dollars a 
year, with a percentage on taxes collected, besides fees for levying 
on and selling property for payment of taxes. 

The act of 1875 came before the courts in several cases. Sutton v. 
Parker, 65 Ind. 536, and Hill v. Shannon, 68 Ind. 470, were cases in 
which minor questions as to Clerks’ fees under that act were decided. 
In Hanlon v. Board, 53 Ind. 123, the court made the important rul¬ 
ing that the provisions of the act of 1875, giving County Auditors 
increased compensation in counties having a population in excess of 
fifteen thousand, were not in violation of Section 22, Article IV, of 
the Constitution, forbidding local or special laws in relation to fees 
and salaries. Judge AVorden, in writing the opinion in the case, said 
of the section of the statute providing for such increase of compensa¬ 
tion: ^Tt is general and of uniform operation. It operates uniformly 
and alike, in all parts of the State, under like facts. It gives the same 
increase of compensation in all counties where there is the same excess 
of population.” The ruling so made was expressly approved in the 
later case of State v. Reitz, 62 Ind. 159. 


23 


.#r' 


THE ACT OF 1879. 


The next statute regulating fees and salaries was that approved 
•March 31, 1879 (Acts 1879, p. 130). By this act the Governor’s sal¬ 
ary was made five thousand dollars; that of the Secretary of State, two> 
thousand dollars, with fees; Auditor of State, fifteen hundred; Treas¬ 
urer of State, three thousand; Superintendent of Public Instruction^^ 
twenty-five hundred, and Attorney-General, twenty-five hundred. 
The County Auditor was allowed twelve hundred dollars a year; andy 
in case the population of his county was over fifteen thousand, he was 
given one hundred and twenty-five dollars additional for each thou¬ 
sand over fifteen thousand and up to twenty thousand, and one hua- 
dred dollars for each thousand over twenty thousand. The allowance 
of one hundred dollars a year for making annual reports to the Audi¬ 
tor of State was also continued. The County Treasurers salary was 
fixed at eight hundred dollars, Avith percentage on taxes collected. All’ 
other compensation to State and county officers \ysls by fees. This- 
act was before the courts in several cases as to the construction 
of the section providing for the County Auditor’s salary. In those' 
cases it Avas decided that the alloAvance of one hundred and twenty-fLVe- 
dollars increase Avas for population oA^er fifteen thousand and up to' 
tAA'enty thousand, and that for population in excess of twenty thousand 
the increase alloAved Avas only one hundred dollars. It was also held 
that no alloAvances for any services could be made to the Auditor ex¬ 
cept those expressly provided for in the statute. Edger v. Board, 70 
Ind. 331; Parker v. Board, 84 Ind. 340; XoAvles v. Board, 86 Ind. 179; 
Stout V. Board, 107 Ind. 313. As to County Treasurers it Avas also 
held in several cases that under the acts of 1873, 1875 and 1879, only 
the compensation specially provided for could be alloAved. Foresmars 
V. Johnson, 65 Ind. 132; Board v. Gregory, 74 Ind. 218; Donaldson 
V. Board, 92 Ind. 80. Like decisions Avere made as to Clerks. Taylor 
V. Board, 67 Ind. 383; Noble v. Board, 101 Ind. 127; Taylor v. Board, 
110 Ind. 462; Ex Parte Harrison, 112 Ind. 329. So also for Sheriff, 
Board v. Gresham, 101 Ind. 53. 

The act of 1879 is the first general fee and salary laAv in which the 
salary of the Attorney-General was provided for. The office of At¬ 
torney-General, under the Constitution of 1851, Avas created by an act 
approved February 21, 1855 (Acts 1855, 16; 1 G. & II. 118). In that 
act the salary of the Attoniey-General Avas fixed at one thousand dol¬ 
lars a year. The act AA'as amended by an act approved June 3, 186? 
(Acts 1861, Sp. Sess. 14; Davis’ Sup. 21), in which amended act thri 


24 


salary remained one thousand dollars, but a docket fee of five dollars 
was added. An act supplemental to the act creating the office was ap¬ 
proved March 10, 1873 (Acts 1873, 18; 1 Davis E. S. 1876, 151). In 
this act the salary of the Attorney-General was increased to three 
thousand dollars, and his docket fee to ten dollars. He was besides 
given a percentage of all moneys collected by him for the State. State 
V. Denny, 67 Ind. 148. The fee and salary law of 1879, in reducing 
the salary of the Attorney-General to twenty-five hundred dollars did 
not change the docket fee or percentage of collections allowed him 
under the supplemental act of 1873. He was moreover given a Clerk 
at a salary of six hundred dollars a year. 

The act of 1879 was amended as to fees of Clerk and Sheriff by an 
act approved April 16, 1881 (Acts 1881, 504; Secs. 5,854, 5873, R. S. 
1881). The various acts relating to fees and salaries, in force at the 
date of the imblication of the Revised Statutes of 1881, are found 
codified and arranged under the titles of the respective officers in 
that revision. 


: CONSTITUTION AMENDED. 

( 

By an amendment to Section 22, Article IV, of the Constitution, 
adopted March 14, 1881, the Legislature was authorized to pass local 
or special laws, ‘‘to grade the compensation of officers in proportion to 
the population and the necessary services required.^^ For ten years, 
however, or until the session of 1891, the Legislature almost wholly 
failed to take any action under the authority so given. The only fee 
and salary legislation of a general character during this interval was 
the act approved February 28, 1883, providing penalties for the col¬ 
lection of illegal or constructive fees (Acts 1883, 48; Secs. 6542, 
Burns’ R. S. 1894). This act is still in force. Benson v. Christian, 
129 Ind. 535; Fuller v. Cox, 135 Ind. 46. Another act, approved 
March 6, 1889 (Acts 1889, 186) provided for local or special salaries 
to County Commissioners, Township Trustees and Township Asses¬ 
sors, in certain counties and townships, according to population. This 
act was afterwards amended by acts approved March 7, 1891 (iVets 
1891, 349), and March 4, 1893 (Acts 1893, 298), and, as amended, is 
still in force (Secs. 7926, 8084, 8085, Burns’ R. S. 1894). The act is 
notable as the first legislation under the amendment to Section 22, 
Article TV, of the Coustitution, authorizing local or special laws in re¬ 
lation to fees and salaries. 


25 


THE ACT OF 1891. 

The first general fee and salary law under the amendment of 1881 
to Section 22, Article JV, of the Constitution, was that of March 9, 
1891 (Acts 1891, 424, Burns^ E. S. 1894, Sec. 6405, etc.). The chief 
characteristic of this law was that, as authorized by said amendment 
to the Constitution, it fixed the salary of each county officer ^fin pro¬ 
portion to the population and the necessary services required,’’ by 
name, in each of the counties of the State, and required the fees col¬ 
lected by them to be paid into the County Treasury, to form a county 
officers’ fund, somewhat after the manner of the fee and salary law of 
1871. It was because the act of 1871 was, in this respect, declared un¬ 
constitutional that the amendment to Section 22, Article IV, was pro¬ 
posed to the people and adopted in 1881. This act was found to be 
constitutional and valid by the Supreme Court, in Henderson v. State, 
137 Ind. 552. 

The salaries of the State officers, as fixed by the act of 1891, were, 
for the Governor, five thousand dollars; for the Lieutenant Governor, 
one thousand dollars, and his per diem while presiding in the Senate; 
Secretary of State, thirt 3 ^-five hundred dollars, and fees; Auditor of 
State, four thousand dollars; Treasurer of State, three thousand dol¬ 
lars; Attorney-General, twenty-five hundred dollars, and fees on col¬ 
lections; Clerk of the Supreme Court, three thousand’ dollars; Super¬ 
intendent of Public Instruction, twenty-five hundred dollars; State 
Geologist, two thousand dollars; Chief of Bureau of Statistics, two 
thousand dollars; Judges of the Supreme Court, each four thousand 
dollars; Judges of the Circuit Court, each twenty-five hundred dol¬ 
lars; Prosecuting Attorney, five hundred dollars, and fees. The Secre¬ 
tary of State, Auditor of State and Clerk of the Supreme Court were 
also allowed ten per cent, of all fees collected by them respectively 
and paid into the State Treasury. In like manner the Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral was allowed to retain out of the amounts of collections made by 
him and paid into the Treasury 12 per cent. As the bill for the act 
of 1891 was first introduced, the several county officers were also to be 
allowed to retain, in addition to their respective salaries as fixed by the 
act, 10 per cent, of fees collected by them respectively and paid into 
the County Treasury. This provision was inconsiderately stricken out 
in the report of the conference committee. The omission proved to he 
a serious damage to the usefulness of the law. 

By some error, whether caused by accident or design has never been 
known. Section 93 of this act, providing for salaries of the officers 


2G 


of Shelby County, was incorrectly enrolled, by the omission of sal¬ 
aries for Auditor, Eecorder and Treasurer. The error was corrected 
by an act approved February 25, 1893 (Acts 1893, 142). The validity 
of the whole act of 1891, as to Auditor, Eecorder and Treasurer, was 
challenged on account of the error referred to in relation to Shelby 
County. The Supreme Court, however, finally held that the amend¬ 
ment of 1893 validated the act of 1891, as to the omitted officers, 
after the date of the amendment. State v. Boice, 140 Ind. 506; Walsh 
V. State, 142 Ind. 357. 


REVISION OF 1895. 

By an act approved March 11, 1895 (Acts 1895, 319), the fees and 
salaries of State and county officers were again revised. This act did 
not materially change the law of 1891, so far as concerned county offi¬ 
cers; except that, while the act of 1891 provided that Clerks, Sheriff's 
and Eecorders should not receive salaries greater in amount than the 
fees paid by them respectively into the County Treasury, the act of 
1895 extended this prohibition also to Auditors and Treasurers. This 
proved a hardship to those two officers, since Auditors and Treasurers 
receive comparatively but little fees for their services, their duties be¬ 
ing chiefly to the county itself. The change made in this respect in 
the act of 1895 is said to have been the result of a mistake in the en¬ 
grossment or enrollment of the bill. The error was corrected and 
authority given the County Commissioners to make compensation to 
Auditors and Treasurers for the deficiency thus caused in their sal¬ 
aries, by two acts approved Februar}^ 17, 1897, and February 26, 1897 
(Acts 1897, 31, 67). The act of 1895, however, was itself held valid. 
Legler v. Paine, 147 Ind. 181. 

Previous to the enactment of the fee and salary law of 1895 the sal¬ 
ary of the Governor had been greater than that of any of the other 
State officers; but by that act, for the first time, the salary of the chief 
magistrate was fixed at a sum much lower than that given to the sub¬ 
ordinate administrative officers. The salary of the Governor, as pro¬ 
vided in the act of 1895, was five thousand dollars, of the Secretary 
of State, six thousand five hundred dollars; Auditor of State, seven 
thousand five hundred dollars; Treasurer of State, six thousand five 
hundred dollars; Attorney-General, seven thousand five hundred dol¬ 
lars; Clerk of the Supreme Court, five thousand dollars; Superin¬ 
tendent of Public Instruction, two thousand five hundred dollars; 
State Geologist, two thousand five hundred dollars; State Statistician, 
two thousand dollars; Judges of the Supreme Court, four thousand 



27 


five hundred dollars each; Eeporter of the Supreme Court, four thou¬ 
sand dollars; Judges of the Appellate Court, three thousand seven 
hundred and fifty dollars each; Judges of the Criminal Courts, two 
thousand five hundred dollars each; Prosecuting Attorney, five hun¬ 
dred dollars and fees. In Section 8 of an act concerning preparation 
and distrihuion of session laws and documenary journals, approved 
March 2; 1897 (Acts 1897, 111), and in Section 8 of an act relating to 
railroad crossings, approved ^larch 8, 1897 (Acts 1897, 237), certain 
additional compensation was allowed to the Secretary of State and 
Auditor of State; but otherwise the compensation of State officers has 
not been changed as fixed in the fee and salary act of 1895. The ap¬ 
parent anomaly of giving, for the first time in the history of the State, 
a less salary to the Governor than to other ofiicers may he explained 
by the circumstance that a lucrative system of fees had gi’own up in 
those offices, and the Legislature, while requiring such fees to be 
thereafter paid into the State Treasury, yet felt constrained to allow 
those officers a larger compensation than might otherwise have been 
deemed adequate. 


RECENT LEGISLATION. 

By an act approved February 22, 1899 (Acts 1899, 77), the fees 
allowed Justices of the Peace were revised; and by an act of the same 
date (Acts 1899, 93) a salary was provided for Justices in certain 
townships. 

By another act, approved March 6, 1899 (Acts 1899, 543), the com¬ 
pensation of County Commissioners was changed from a per diem to 
a salar}^ ‘^^graded in proportion to the population and the necessary 
services required in each of the said several counties.^^ 

By an act of February 24, 1899, and another of March 2, 1899 (Acts 
1899, 91, 374), provision was made for increasing the salaries of Cir¬ 
cuit and Superior Judges in certain cases, the salary, however, in any 
case not to exceed three thousand dollars. 

Finalhq by an act approved March 3, 1899 (Acts 1899, 255), the 
General Assembly created a Fee and Salary Commission, whose duty 
it was made to procure and systematize such information as might be 
necessary to secure and adjust a proper system of fees and salaries for 
State, county, township and other public officers, and to make report 
of the proceedings of said Commission to the Sixty-second General 
Assembly. It was accordingly d.eemed proper by the Commission that 
this sketch of previous legislation concerning fees and salaries, and 
decisions of the courts thereon, should be made a part of its report 
to the General Assembly. 


III. 


LINE OF INVESTIGATION. 


The Commission, at the outset of its work, was confronted by a 
jmoblem toward the solution of which it had no precedent or law. 
The field of investigation was wide, almost unlimited, in fact, and the 
details multifarious. Where to begin and how to begin was a question 
that required close consideration. Haphazard solicitation of informa¬ 
tion, while it would result in the procuring of much material fact, 
would tax the patience of the officers solicited and embarrass the Com¬ 
mission with an almost impossible work of systematic arrangement so 
as to make its report comprehensive, logical and consistent. It was, 
therefore, decided to at first secure information that would make 
available for the purposes of this report, the resources of each office 
in taxation of fees, the amount of pa 5 unents in operating each office, 
especially as to deputy hire, and the extra amounts paid each officer, 
in addition to that allowed by law to be paid solely out of fees. The 
series of questions decided upon, applicable in common to the Clerk, 
Sheriff and Recorder, was as follows: 

1. Are the fees of your office equal to your salary? If not, what is the yearly 
deficiency ? 

2. How much of this deficiency, if any, is due to fees of slow collections or 
uncollectible? 

3. What amount of fees have you collected for your predecessor? 

4. Did you have an agreement with him for compensation on such collections? 

5. If so, what does it amount to in the year? 

6. Under your own interpretation of the fee and salary law, that of your legal 
adviser, or any ruling of court, what fees do you collect and apply to your own 
use, and of which you make no return to the County Auditor? 

7. Do you charge, under legal advice, or under ruling of court, or through 
understanding or conviction that you have a right to so charge, for any service 
not in the schedules applicable to your office? 

8. If so, what is the amount so collected and for what service rendered? 

9. How many clerks, deputies, or other employes do you have? 

10. What salary do you pay each of them? 

11. How many are employed throughout the year? 


-28-- 





29 


12. How many part of the time, and for what time? 

13. What is the total amount paid by you for such services in the course of 
the year? 

14. What is your net salary out of fees collected ? 

15. Is your salary paid in full out of fees collected? If not, what is the rea¬ 
son it is not? 

16. Have you had, or did your predecessor have, any extra allowances by 
County Commissioners for deficit in salary or expense of office from March 1, 1897, 
to March 1, 1899 ? 

17. Have you done, or did your predecessor perform, any extra work such as 
restoring plats or indexing records, etc., under order of or contract with County 
Commissioners? If so, what were you and your predecessor paid therefor? 

In addition to the above questions the Sheriff was asked: 

1. What work have you done out of your own county? 

2. State the amount in fees from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, and the 
kind of work. This to include taking prisoners to reformatory, prisons, hospital 
for the insane, boys and girls to reform schools, etc. 

3. What work have you done for courts in other counties? 

4. State amount in fees from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. 

The Eecorder was asked, in addition to the first seventeen questions, 
the following: 

1. What is the number of deeds recorded by you from March 1, 1897, to 
March 1, 1899 ? 

2. What is the number of mortgages recorded in the same period? 

3. What is the number of leases and miscellaneous instruments recorded dur¬ 
ing the same time? 

From the Treasurer was solicited information along these lines: 

1. Do you charge, under any legal advice, or under ruling of court, or 
through understanding or conviction that you have a right to so charge, for any 
services not in the schedules applicable to your office? 

2. If so, what is the amount collected and for.what services rendered? 

3. How many deputies, clerks and other employes do you have? 

4. What salary do you pay each of them? 

5. How many are employed throughout the year? 

6. How many part of the time and for what time? 

7. ' What is the total amount paid by you for such services in the course of 
the year? 

8. What is your net salary out of fees collected? 

9. Have you had, or did your predecessor have, any extra alloAvance by 
County Commissioners for deficit in salary or expense of office from March 1, 1897, 
to March 1, 1899? 

10. What is the amount of taxes in your county collected each of the past 
two years from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899? 

11. What is the amount of delinquencies collected during the same time? 

12. What is the amount of uncollected delincjuencies during that time? 


30 


Of the Auditor was asked the following: 

1. Give the number of clerks and deputies and all other employes in your 
office. 

2. How are they employed—by the month, week or day? 

3. What compensation do you pay each? 

4. What extra allowances, if any (specify what amounts), have been claimed 
by any officers of your county and townships thereof from March 1, 1897, to March 
1, 1899? 

5. What payments have been made on such claims by the County Commis¬ 
sioners? 

6. Has any officer done additional work from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 
1899, under order or contract of-County Commissioners, such as indexing, restor¬ 
ing plats and records, etc.? 

7. If so, what has been paid for such services, and to whom paid ? 

8. What have been the total returns of fees collected and reported to you 
quarterly as County Auditor, from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, by— 

Clerk ? 

Auditor? 

Recorder? 

Treasurer? 

Sheriff? 

9. During the same period what has been the total salary paid to— 

Clerk ? 

Auditor? 

Recorder? 

Treasurer ? 

Sheriff? 

10. What system do you have in paying such salaries? 

11. What have been the fees or compensation paid the following officers in 
your county from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899— 

County Commissioners? 

Coroner ? 

Prosecuting Attorney ? 

Township Trustees? 

Surveyor? 

Secretary of Board of Health? 

In addition each officer was asked: 

Total fees charged by yon from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. 
Total fees collected by yon from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. 
.Salary allowed nnder the law from ^larcli 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. 
Salary paid from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. 

\ 

STATISTICS OF FEES AND SALARIES. 

The infonnation received through this means of solicitation was 
not altogether uniform, some of the officers giving intelligible answers 
to all the questions, others leaving much to he desired, and others still 


answering in such manner as to indicate that they had no comprehen¬ 
sion of the business, and were either unwilling, or without the means 
of giving the facts and figures asked for. The results as to fees taxed, 
fees collected, payments of salaries and payments of deputies, were, in 
the main, satisfactory. But to ascertain, even approximately, the 
amount paid in addition thereto for extra work was left to other 
means; which will appear in this report. The results obtained by the 
questions set forth above can he best shown in the following tables, 
which cover the transaction of two years, except as to payment of 
deputies and net salary, which are calculated on a one-year basis. 

The columns indicating Auditors report of fees collected and sal¬ 
ary paid should agree, under a strict observance of the law, with the 
reports of the officers, as to fees taxed and fees collected. The re¬ 
quirement of law in this respect is under Section 124 of the fee and 
salary act of 1895 and reads: 

^‘The Clerks, Auditors, Treasurers, Sheriffs and Kecorders of each 
county shall, on tlie first Monday of December, March, June, and 
September of each year, each make a sworn report to the County Au¬ 
ditor in writing, showing specifically the amount of fees collected 
during the preceding three months, and they shall pay to the County 
Treasurer the amount shown by the said report and take the County 
Treasurer's receipt therefor, wliich receipt shall be filed in the County 
Auditor’s office, and the Auditor shall give to the officer a. quietus for 
the amount paid by such officer, and. which sum shall be kept by the 
Auditor and Treasurer of each county as separate and distinct funds, 
to be known respectively as “Clerk’s Fund,” “Auditor’s Fund,” 
“Treasurer’s Fund,” “Sheriff’s Fund,” and “Eecorder’s Fund.” 

It will be observed, in many instances, that tliese reports of the 
Auditor of fees collected and salary paid do not agTee with the reports 
of the other officers to this Commission. This is only one of a number 
instances wherein the law has been either directly violated or loosely 
observed. 


FIGURES FROM CLERKS’ OFFICES. 

The figures relating to the Clerk’s offices show the following for the 
' two vears, from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899: 


CLERK’S TABLE. 


32 


• ^ ^ 

g,c<jQ. 

0^ 

CO 

o 




LO 

o 

X) 

o 

o 

CO 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

CO 


CO 

CO 

lO 



o 

o 

r-^ 

o 

o 

o 

rH 

o 



o 

o 

o 

• cc 

o 

t- 

CM 


!>• 

O 

o 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

r-- 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• LO 

o 

cc 

CO 

o 

CO 


CO 

cc 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

CO 

1^ 

o 

o 

o 

. 

o 

o 

o 

CO 


CM 

CM 

cc 

CM 

CM 

cc 

CM 

CM 


1- 

rr* 

CO 

CO 

cc 

CO 

cc 

• o 

C£^ 

CO 

CM 

cc 


o' 


w\ 

CM 

co"" 

LO" 

#v 


co" 

#v 

LO 


iO 

CM 

LO" 


tjT 


I 


co" 

LO" 

CO 

rr 





• 

• 

CM 

cc 

o 

X 

CO 

CO 


CO 


CO 

o 

CO 

LO 

X 

X 

• o 




CO 

CO 


V 

• CM 

T—1 


cc 

o 


o 

o 

TT 

1-^ 

CO 

r-i 

o 



LO 

• X 

o 

LO 

X 

r-1 


30 

CJ 

• LO 

t-H 

CO 

LO 

o 

rH 

r-H 


LO 

LO 

CM 

o 

CO 

CO 



• LO 

X 


LO 

o 

CO 



• 

t-- 

cc 

V-H 

lO 


X 

o 

X 


lO 

CO 

CO 

lO 


Oi 

• r^ 


CM 

X 

CO 


k 

Cl 

• LO 

lO 

cc 


o 

X 

I'- 

X 

!>• 

i-- 

LO 

CO 

X 

c: 



• o 

X 


I--- 

X 

r™< 


6 

. co" 

lO 

CM 

l>r 

LO" 



o 

cT 


;o" 

CM 

LO" 

x" 

lO 

lO" 

I -rtn" 

x" 

x" 

io" 

X 



m 


•**» 

^ — 


o o 
o o cc 

O o CO 
<z> ^ 
lO c<l l> 

(M 1-( 

¥& 


o o 
o o 

o o 
00 o 
at ^ 


o o o o o 

o o o o o 

^ o o o o 

oo o o o o 

CO t> Ci GO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

cc o o o 
CO o o o 

!>► O (M CO 


o o o 
o o o 

O (M O 
O CO o 
1> GC 






O O o 
O O o 

O O o 

O O (M 
!>► CO o 


cc 

Cl 


o o o 
o o o 

o o o 
O o o 

CO <M 
-T' 

CO 


o o 
o o 

o o 

(M CO 
CO IC 


o o o o o 

o o o o o 

lO O o o o 

^ o o o o 

CO 1>- o o c:» 


o o o o 
o o O o 

o o o o 
C<l o o o 

Tt* <M 


o o o 
o o o 

0^0 
O t'- o 

00 lO CO 


s ^ 

o o 
o o 

O QO 

1-1 


cc 

Cl) 

o c 


C<1 CO CO 


(M C<1 


C<l 


(M 


<M CO lO 




cc ^ 




o CO to 00 
^ o l>“ 

lO 

Jo r-H <M CO 

CM Tf oo 

^ lO of 

\fj 


JO^COO^t^ o^ooo 

Tfcoo^r- o'^f—iCo 


oo a:> ^ 

Tt« lO ^ CO 
Ci 00 


O CO lO 

o o ^ 

GO 1'^ ‘O 

rs ^ #x cv •V ^ 

<O^»^C0 


O O o 

O CO 

(M CO ,-( 

CO O 00 
CO CO O 

^ ^ #s 

(M lO CO CO 


CO O (M 
CO 00 lO 

00 ^ o 

o:. 

00 


o o c<j 

oo O o Tf 

^ lO Tf 

r-1 ^ ^ 

l>- !>• CO 1-H 

1—< CO CO icT CO" -rp 


k cr-i 


•<«* 

J5 


O lO lO 
O lO O 

o 

<M a:. O 
00 CO o 

♦V ^ «N 

^ lO CO 

r-H 


o 

o 

o 

o 


O o 
o o 


o 

o 


o o o 


.c ^ o o o o 

^ 0<l (:£> 00 O 

#v ^ »s 


<M O O uo o 

O O o 

i—i o o Ttt o 

Ir^ O O O o 

Tfi o CO 00 

oo"' cT 04 ^ co' CO 


O O (M O 
O O O 

O O o 
O O tc o 

(M C<l 00 'M 


CO 

CO 


o 

o 

o 

o 


#v ^ 

CO 


O O O o 

0 0^0 

O O lO o 

O O t-- o 
CO TT rf 'Tf' 


O CO LO 
O CO o 

O ^ CO 
O 00 CO 
00 

rs 

(M CO 


o o o o 
o o o 

oi o o o 
o o o 

CO CM 00 CO 




CM'^CO COLOr-iTf* COlOtJhlO (MlO’^ 


. O lC O 

• 00 o o 

* 

• CO CO o 

• CO oo O 

• f—I o 


o o O 
o 00 o 

O lO o 
o o 
w o CO 


O O o o 
o O o o 

O O o 
O LO CM lO 
C5 CM rf o 


CM CM lO* CO' 


5^ O o CM 
00 o 

CO o o ^ 
CO o r-^ 
CO CM ^ 


l>. CO lO 


o o o o 

o o o o 

o o o o 

w ’T' S ^ ^ ^ 

5 ^ CM CO oo O 


•"O 


rti cm" CO 
1—( 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

CM CM ^ CM 


O O o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

CO ^ CD 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
c: o O o 
(M CM 00 CO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o 

QC o CM <x> 


COlOCM^ COlOiO^ COLO^Tf COlK 


^ o o o 
—' o o o 

o o o o 
^ o o o 

co" 


p 

• 

♦ 

0) 

« 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• « 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

« « 

• • 

• • • 

• • « 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

* • * • 

• • « • 

* • • • 

o • 

• 

a 

# 

♦ 

# 

• 

nr 

• 

• 

t 

• » 

» • 

# 

• 

# 

• 

• 

« 

• ♦ 

% # 

• « 

* • • 

"0 ' P 

• 

* • • • 

* • . 

. 0^ 

CO 

• 

"c 

p 

o 

Boone . 

• _ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• p 

^ :o ^ 
O CO O 

;-i 

o 

^ P CO 

p 

< 

Allen 

5^ 

cz 

PQ 

o 

c 

o 

cq 

rl4 

o 

p 

s 

Browi 

Carro 

Cass 

Clark 

Clay 

Clinto 

^ a> X! 

> .-H 3-, 

— > 

2 P 0) 
O o Q 

•4^ 

p 

CJ 

a* 

Q 

Dekal 

Delaw 

Diiboi 

Elkha 


<1> 

n3 


c c: 

*s ^ 

5 ^ 

o t 


I 










































Fulton. 3,800 00 3,800 00 4,626 98 4,12198 1 700 00 1,300 00 4,067 77 3,673 35 

Gibson. 4,800 00 4,800 00 7,473 85 5,266 35 2 1,100 00 1,300 00 5,266 35 4,800 00 

Grant. 8,400 00 8,400 00 18,165 00 10,899 00 4 2,008 00 2,192 00 13,071 55 8,400 00 

Greene. 4,800 00 . 8,600 00 4,394 15* .. . 3,936 41 3,936 41 


# 


33 



O 

o 

o 

o 

(N 

o 

o 

o 


00 

o 

o 


CO 

o 


o 

o 

<N 

O 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

00 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

#0 

o 

(M 

o 

o 


o 


o 

• l>- 

o 

o 

o 


O) 

lO 

CO 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o:* 

o 

o 


o 

CO 

o 



o 

o 


o 


o 

o 

o 

(M 


lO 


<N 




o 

• C<l 

lO 


TP 

i-H 


Tt^ 



CO 

<o 


CO 


lO 

lo' 


tjT 

co" 

. ^ 



40" 

co" 

co' 

CO 





CO 


o 

iO 

CO 

a<\ 


o 


• 

Tp 

00 


o 


CO 

CO 

rH 

tP 

kO 

CO 

TJH 

o 



oo 

iO 

o 



CO 

00 

(M 



o 


1-H 

I>- 

tP 

ic 



rH 

(M 


o 


iO 

♦ 

• 

o' 

o 

oo 

CO 


o 


CO 

CO 


1-- 

iC 


!>. 

CO 

(M 

CO 

(M 


• 

o 

(M 

(M 

00 

CO 

o 

TP 

o 

CO 


CO 

00 

lO 


CO 


CO 

CO 

CO 

• 

Tp 

iO 

T}^ 

(M 

(M 

Tp^ 

co^ 


CO 

rH 

co'' 


CO 


<s 

lO 

t>r 


co' 

• 

io' 


tp" 

co" 

ccT 

CO 

ciT 

t>r 


♦N 

o 


o 

o 

• 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

• 

• 

lO 

o 

tP 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

Ol 

o 

• 

# 


o 

o 

iO 


o 

o 


o 

o 

lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

TP 

CO 

• 

# 

o 



CO 

(M 

o 

(M 

(M 

CO 

lO 

iO 

lO 

oo 

iO 

TP 

1-H 


«N 

« 

• 







#s 






r\ 

#N 




▼H 

• 


(M 


rH 


rH 

rH 

(N 

•r-’ 


rH 

<N 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 



o 

o 

# 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

• 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

tP 

o 

• 


lO 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 



o 

♦ 

• 


o 


iO 

CO 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

C9 

00 

• 

• 

iO 

o 


!>• 

rH 

!>• 

cs 

Tp 

CO 

C<l 

rH 


00 

o 

00 

CO 



• 

• 


rH 









rH 


r-T 

of 


(m" 


iO 

CO 

ft 

• 

ft 

ft 

(M 

(M 

C<J 


rH 

CO 

ft 

ft 


rH 

tH 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

lO 

o 

rH 

o 

* 

CO 

rH 

o 

o 

iC 

CO 




lO 

iO 

o 

iO 

CO 

iO 


CO 

o 


o 

oo 


o 

o 

rH 

rH 

oo 

CO 

X) 


o 

o 

05 


o 

lO 

05 

lO 

rH 

00 

00 



tP 

Tp 

iO 

00 

o 

CO 

oo 

Tp 

iO 

rH 


o 

tP 

rH 


lO 

iO 

CO 

TP 

Oi 

o 

o 


(M 

o 

05 

tP 

rH 

tr^ 

CO 

Tp 

00 



CO 

00 


00 

lO 

Tp 

05 

o 



Tp 

CO 

tP 



CO 

CO 

t- 

05 

00 

CO 



CO 

CO 

iO 

CO 

CO 

CO 




Tp 

#s 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

tP 

Tp 

#s 

CO 

rH 


o 

00 

ft 

ft 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

UO 

o 

o 

(M 

o 

o 

ft 

uo 

• lO o 

o 


ft 

ft 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

(M 


o 

CO 

o 

o 

ft 

rH 

• t>* o 

o 


ft 

ft 

ft 

lO 

lO 

CO 

o 

tP 

05 

05 

o 

05 

o 

lO 

• 


• CO O 

o 

oo 

ft 

ft 

(M 

rH 

(M 


00 

rH 

oc 

o 

Tp 

o 

lO 

ft 

CO 

• tH , O 

CO 

Tp 

ft 

ft 

CO 


05 

05 

co^ 

CO 

Tp 

(M 

CO 

(M 

Tp 

ft 


• CO o 

oo 

CO 

ft 

ft 

ft 

ft 


CO 

00 

CO 

Tp"" 

»s 

rH 

rH 

iO 

CO 


rH 

rH 

CO 

ft 

ft 

00 

. ^ C<l 


o 

o 

ft 

ft 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Tp 


o 

o 

o 

lO 

o 

lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ft 

ft 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

05 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ft 

ft 

ft 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


CO 

o 

o 

o 

rH 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

ft 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Tp 

05 

o 

o 

o 

CO 


00 

o 

o 

tP 

(M 

ft 

ft 

<N 


Tp 

00 


(M 


CO 

Tp 

tP^ 

Tp 

CO 

tP 


Tp 

CO 

lO 

tp' 

ft 

ft 

ft 

ft 

lO 

iO 

lO 

tP 

co'' 


lo" 

<cf 

Tp 

iO 


co' 

CO 

''p'" 

tP*" 

oT 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Tp^ 

(M 


tP^ 

(M 

tP 

TP^ 

00 

o 

(M 

00 

Tp^ 

Tp^ 

Tp^ 

tP^ 

CO 

^-s 


TP 

<p 

lo' 

TP*' 


Tp*' 

lO 

lO 


-p 

CO*" 

iO 

Tp*' 

co"* 

tp" 

iO" 

lO 

co" 

l>r 


Tp'' 

05^' 


a 

K 


o 

o 

o 

G 

CC 

w 


cc 

a 

• ^ 
u 

W 


s 

c E? 
a> o 

X K 


fl 

o 

to 


c 

o 

OQ 

a 


C 

O 


0) 

X 


OQ 


cj od O) 


CO 

Q 

n 

a 

<v 



CO 

C 

W 


H -S 

5 CO 

C3 O 


a> 

tx) 

c 

bJD 

c3 

H-I 


<X> 

a 



<x> 

6 

(J 

c 

H 

0) 


a 

o 

CO 


O 

CL 


^ 'TJ 
03 




^ ^ ^ ^ 


3 —F. AND S. Com 


’•'From State Statistician. 









































CLERK’S TABLE—Continued. 


84 


>>—V • 

. ^ 

CO 

-I 'e 

^ ^ ^ 






cc 

C, P,K. 

q rH 


o o 
o o 

o o 
o o 

O Tf 

Oi lO 
CO 

m 


o 

00 

lO 




^ O 00 
O 00 0<l 


a 


rH CO 
lO CO 

es »* 

<x> CO 
lO 


^ h 


o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 


Oi 


(M 


o 

o 


lO 00 OI 

#s ^ 

CO rH 1 


o o o 
o o o 

o o o 
o o »-» 

O CO 1—1 
CO 


o 

rH 

o 

o 


o 

rH 



o 

pH 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

kO 

o 


o 

O) 

o 

o 


o 

CO 

CO 


o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 


00 


00 

CO 

CO 

(M 

oo 

00 






iO 




rH 

c<r 



o 

1- 



o 

rH 



CO 

<M 

CO 

o 

CO 

oo 

lO 

o 


QO 

o 

(M 




CO 

CO 


p«^ 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

1- 

CO 

00 


CO 

00 



oo 

Oi 

rH 



t-T 


oT 

iO 

of 

co'' 

ms 

(M 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

# 

♦ 

o 

kO 

iO 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

• 

o 

O) 

(M 

CO 

lO 

rH 

oo 

lO 

• 


o 

#s 

p. 


#N 


ms 

• 

•iv 


r^ 

r-1 

• 





• 



O 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

• 

o 

o 

cc 

a; 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

a> 

o 

kO 


o 

o 

• 


o 


o 

o 


o 

CO 

• 




CO 

kO 




• 

• 



<5- 




00 O 00 o 
lO oo O 

CO oc Ol O 

^ r-M C<l O 
o c^ ^ o 

»s ^ 

CO CO 


OO O 00 <M 
rf lO iO 

CO 00 CO ^ 
^ lO CO 
o O CO CO 

H^r co"" CO*" ccT 


0^00 
o c<l o o 

<3 Ci o 
QO '7' CO 
CO 

o 

I—I ^ o c<l 
CO 


o 

o 

o 

(M 

!>• 


o 

o 

lO 

(N 

CO 




-•-C- 

41 


cc 

^ **o 


CO 


^ • 


55^ 


^2 


kO 

rH 

rH 

1—H 



CO 

rH 

rH 


rH 

rH 

05 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 


o 

oo 

o 

CO 

o 

o. 

CO 

CO 

o 

kO 

o 

G<l 

o 

o 

o 


rH 


o 

rH 

o 

o 


rH 

kO 

CO 

o 

rH 

kO 


o 

r-- 

kO 

pH 


o 

o 

rH 

00 

rH 

CO 

rH 

o 

CO 

00 

rH 

o 

Oi 

CO 

a:^ 

Oi 


o 

rH 

o: 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

kO 


CO 

rH 

#s 

kO 

o:) 

CO 

o^^ 

CO 

rH 

rs 

kO 

Oi 

rH 

p\ 

CO 

o 

G^ 

o 


rf 

CO 

kO 

m 

kO 



of 

Oi 

kO 



rH 

CO 

co" 

Tt" 

CO 

CO 

kO" 

o 

00 

(M 

o 

00 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

• 

o 


kO 

o 

o 

o 

00 

rJH 

o 


o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

♦ 

o 

oo 

rH 

o 

o 

o 

Ci 

(M 

CO 

o^ 

o 



kO 

o 

• 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

oa 

Oi 


o 


CO 


o 

• 

o 

CO 

t-. 

kO 

CO 

o 



CO 

(M 

o 

#v 

CO 


<N 

m* 

!>• 

• 

4 

kO 

CO 

Oi 

(M 

00 

(M 

I'- 

m 

co^' 

CO*" 

of 


rt- 

rH 

kO 

CO 

kO 


• 

CO 

kO" 

CO 



o 

o 

rH 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

Oi 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

rH 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

kO 

CO 

o 

o 

kO 


o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

CO 

rH 

o 

o 

oo 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

rH 

o 

o 

00 

o 

QO 

o» 

CO 

(M 

00 

00 

rH 

CO 

o 

C<l 

o 


oo 

#s 

Oi 

CO 


CO 


of 

#v 

kO 


cf' 

'cjT 

rH 

CO 

r\ 

CO 

#N 

CO 

CO 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 


00 

CO 

CO 


CO 

CO 

o 

Hfl 

CO 


o 

o 

oo 

of 

ro 


co'" 

m^ 

rf 

iO 


#s 


G<J 

co" 

CO 

#N 



kO 


m 


pi 

6 


03 

^ .i: 

CA ^ 

o3 c^ 


c« 


s ^ ^ 


0^ 

a 

o c c 

bf) o 3 O 

1:; ^ 

C 

o o ^ 

s s s ^ 


<D 


0^ 

bo 


pO ,2 


c 

s ^ 
o ^ u ^ 

o o o 


o 


^ CD ^ 

cS i d O 
^ Ph Ph 


Posey. 4,400 00 4,400 00 6,000 00 5,307 36 1 150 00 2,050 00 5,307 36 4,521 55 

Pulaski. 2,800 00 2,800 00 . 3,550 00 1 400 00 1,000 00 . 

Putnam.. 4,400 00 3,808 72 . 3,469 74 2 1,100 00 1,100 00 3,808 72 3,808 72 

Randolph. . 5,400 00 5,400 00 . 5,676 00 2 1,020 00 1,680 00 1,501 47 1,350 00 






































Hipley. 4,400 00 3,859 81 7,000 00 3,859 81 2 900 00 1,200 00 3,859 81 3,859 81 

Rush. 4,600 00 . 7,122 48- .. . 8,678 44 7,475 00 

Scott. 2,000 00 . 1,620 00'^ .. . 1,467 85 1,467 85 

Shelby. 4,800 00 4,800 00 7,501 56 5,861 63 2 1,200 00 1,200 00 4,948 94 4,800 00 

Spencer. 4,400 00 3,962 00 5,317 09 3,962 15 2 700 00 1,500 00 3,962 15 3,962 15 


f 



o 

o 

o 

X 

CO 

o 



o 


o 

o 

CO 


o 


o 


o 

o 

o 

• Oi 

CO 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


X 

o 



o 

CO 

o 

o 

X 

Oi 

o 


o 

rt- 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

CO 

o 

lO. 


o 

CO 

o 

o 


CO 

o 


o 

04 

o 

CO 

00 

• Tf 

1-^ 

(M 


lO 


iO 

CO 

o 

X 

CO 



X 





• ^ 


#v 









•s 

#s 



(M 

CO 

X 




rH 

rH 

CO 

o 

lO 

CO 

CO 





X 



o 

fH 

• X 

X 



CO 



at 


X 

X 


X 

X 

r-« 

iO 


X 

• Ot 

CO 

04 


o 

CO 


lO 

rH 

rH 

o 

X 

o 


at 


iO 

lO 

• 

X 

at 


X 

X 

CO 

X 


X 

at 

X 

<N 

X 





• o 

CO 

CO 


lO 


CO 


X 


CO 

X 


X 

o 

lO 

CO 


• 

fH 

at 


o 

CO 

lO 

CO 


X 

CO 


X 

»o 





♦ ^ 



#«• 












(M 


at 





X 

X 

o 


(oT 

X 


at 


rt^ 

X 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

I 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 


o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

lO 


o 

X 

CO 

o 

o 

• o 

04 

o 

o 



o 

o 

LO 

X 

CO 

X 

at 

of 

04 


CO 

LO 

at 

• X 

• ^ 

of 

CO 

rv 

at 

X 

at 

o 

04 

CO 

rH 




o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

lO 

CO 

o 

o 

• • 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

lO 

at 

o 

CO 

X 

o 

o 

• o 

X 

o 

o 

‘O 

■•o 

o 

o 


04 




o 


04 

CO 

rH 

I ^ 

Tf 

04 

CO 

X 

04 


CO 


LO 




rH 


of 



• 

CO 





rH 





<:0 

CO 

o 

iO 

CO 

CO 


0:> 

o 


iO 


CO 

QO 

00 

O 

a:) 

o 


00 

CO 

00 


rH 

rH 

2 or 

X 

04 


04 

rH 

• 

• 

ifj 


LO 

04 



X 

04 

04 

04 

f—^ 

-1— 

X 

rH 

1^ 

o 




o 

o 

lO 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

Tf 


at 

04 

o 

o 

CO 


LO 

rH 

X 

o 

rH 

o 

X 

o 

o 

CO 


o 

rH 

X 

at 

t- 

X 

o 

X 

o 


LO 

LO 

CO 


o 

X 



X 


04 


LO 

LO 

o 


04 

pH 

X 


04 

rf 

X 


CO 



04 


CO 

at 

04 

X 

LO 




at 


LO 


pH 

o 

o 

X 

at 

LO 


CO 

LO 

lO 

lO 

X 


X 

rH 

lO 


at 

•N 






#v 

rs 


#N 





rs 



#v 

0S 


04 


■at 

LO'' 

04 

at 


rH 

04 

^H 

X 

o 

rH 


04 

X 

• 

X 

X 


CO 

X 

lO 

LO 


o 

o 

X 

o 

o 

LO 

• 

LO 

i> 

o 

rH 

o 

X 


LO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

X 

o 

o 

rH 

o 

o 


♦ 

04 


iO 

rH 

o 

o 



lO 

X 

04 

lO 

04 

o 


o 


o 

X 

• 

rH 

LO 



o 

X 


CO 


o 




o 

CO 

X 

04 

o 

X 

• 


X 

LO 

X 

o 

X 

LO 


X 



X 

I>- 

o 



X 

o 


• 

lO 



lO 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

04 


04 








• 



cs 


#s 

#v 

rs 




•s 

X 


X 

co" 

rH 

o 

rr 


rH 

• 


Tf 

04 

X 

X 


X 

o 

r^ 


lO 

at 

^H 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

LO 

* 

o 

X 

o 

rtH 


at 

o 

o 

o 

o 

at 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

# 

o 

X 

o 

rH 

X 

at 

o 

o 

o 

o 

lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

X 

o 

o 


• 

o 

CO 

o 


lO 

LO 

o 

o 

o 


X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

at 

o 

o 


• 

o 

CO 

o 

04 

X 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

at 

CO 

o 

CO 

X 


CO 

X 

04 

LO 

• 

04 

lO 

<o 

lO 

X 



TtH 

X 


at 


#s 





#s 


• 

#v 

#s 








0^ 


04 

X 

X 

rjT 

04 



rH 

• 

X 

o 

rH 

LO 

04 

X 


t— 


X 

CO 

X 

X 

rr 

m 

o 

o 

o 



o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

X 


o 

X 

04 

o 

CO 

04 

04 

CO 

o 


'Cf 



X 

o 





VJ 






#*s 






0K 




0K 

04 

x*" 

x'' 


X 



04 

04 

rH 

X 

rH 

LO 

X 





X 


o 

X 

m 


a 


a. 

o o 

S o 

<v 


02 X GG 


♦ 

• 


s • 

• 

• 

tt) 

H 

• 

c 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

c 

o 

• 

• 

• 

# 

♦ 

• 

« 

• 

• 

9 


0 

o 


pp 

o 

• 


• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

0^ 

pr 

c3 

c 

c3 • 

• 

pS 

• ^ 

• 

• 

• 


50 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


a 

p3 

rt 

> 

• 

Th 

<v 

CJ H 

^ o 

Cp 

c 

o 

<v 

• fH 

2 

c 

X 

c3 

pO 

5 

im 

o 

«o 

at 

a 

• 

X 

at 

•w 
• ^ 

>4-3 

• pp 

H 



Oh CU 

# 

r 

a 

> 

50 




ct 


'a 

pp 

JZ 


cc 

X 

H H 

5 

CQ 

> 

> 








> 



’“From State Statistician. t33^ years. 























































SHERIFFS’ FEES AND SALARIES. 


» 

The figures in the following table, as to salary paid, fees taxed and 
fees collected include, in some instances, per diem and allowances, 
and in others turnkey's fees; hut it is the opinion of the Commission 
that the rule relating to turnkey's fees has been their retention by the 
Sheriff without report to the Auditor. In other cases, as to salary 
paid, fees taxed and fees collected, the per diem as well as tumkey^s 
fees have been held out as the property of the Sheriff. The custom of 
retention of per diem and allowances and other fees is specifically 
noted in the digest of information from each county that is included in 
this report. 

The receipt from foreign fees and payments for transportation of 
prisoners and insane have been eliminated from this table and carried 
in the digest of information referred to, under the head of ^^Miscel- 
laneous;’^ the table, therefore, showing only the resources of the offi¬ 
cers from fees taxed, and fees collected, with the exceptions as noted 
above relative to per diem, allowances and turnke 3 ^s fees. 

In the digest mentioned it will also be noted that, in addition to 
fees, per diem, turnkey’s fees and foreign fees, that the Sheriff re¬ 
ceives a large amount from boarding prisoners, of which no report is 
made to the County .Auditor, and which, upon payment out of the 
Treasury on approval of the County Commissioners monthly, is re¬ 
tained as the Sheriff’s own. 



SHERIFF’S TABLE. 


\ 


37 


* 




o 

o 

Oi 

a> 

o 


• 

• 

I> 

00 

o 

o 

CO 

00 

o 

• ^3 

O •«*» 



rH 

CO 

o 

Tt^ 


o 

^ CS 

• 

00 

CO 


o 

00 

o 

o 


• 

• 


Oi 

00 

(M 

o 


o 

%> ■*■ 

• 

CO 

c<r 


CO 

CO 

rH 




m 







^co 









O 

# 

CO 

Tt< 

o 

o 




rx 

• 

• 

l> 


o 

CO 

lO 

00 

00 

—ij m V 

• 

CO 

o 

CO 

lO 


!>. 

lO 

^ ::s 

• 

CO 

CM 



CM 

o 

00 

• 

• 

a:» 

o 

00 

00 

CO 


iO 

•* 

O 

• 

CO 

CO*" 

rH 


CO 

rH 

CM 



















^ ^ 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

• 

• 

o 

o 







o 

♦ 

o 




Oi 


CO 

• 

CO 



of 



r-H 

t-H 

• 

rH 











rH 

o 

00 

rH 

Oi 


o 

lO 

o 

• 

o 

^H 

o 

o 


(M 

CM 

a> 

o 

00 

o 

• 

rr 

o 

lO 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

00 

o 

00 

o 

• 



lO 

o 




o 

o 

fcO 

o 

• 

Tf 

o 

rH 

co^ 

CM 


CM 

CM 

o 

iO 

CO 

* 

rH 



lO 



co" 

lO 


cm" 

CM*" 

« 

• 

CO 

lO 


rH 

CO 

00 

rH 

Oi 

Oi 


lO 

• 


o 

^H 

o 

lO 


(M 

(M 

CM 

iO 

00 

• 

• 


o> 

iO 

!>. 

CO 

CO 

co 


I> 

00 

• 

• 

CM 


iO 

o 


Oi 


00 



• 

• 


o 

rH 


(M 

o 

C<l 

rH 

iO 

lO 

• 

• 











• 

• 




lO 



CO 


CM 

M 

• 

• 

CO 

to 


o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

* o 

(M 

o 

o 

(M 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 


oo 

CO 


CM 

oo 

00 

CO 

a> 


CO 

CO 

rH 

rH 

rH 


rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

#s 

hh 

cm" 


^ 5- 


o 

c: 


o o 
o o 


o o o 
lO ':o o 

iX* CO 




cc 


o 

o 

CX) 

QO 

uo 


o o 
O o 

o o 
o 

t-H 00 



o o o o o o 

o o o o o o 

o o o o o o 

O O (M O O O 

00 CO CO ^ 


o o 
o o 


O 00 
O CO 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


»N 




• r- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

rH 

CM 

CM 

• 

to 

CO 

• CO 

M 

CO 

rH 

CO 

rH 

CM 


CO 

rH 


iV. 






• 













• 


CM 

CM 

oo 

CM 

O 

CO 

CO 


. 00 

O 

o 

05 


to 

CM 

05 

o 

o 

cc ^ 

o 

CO 

cc 

05 


o 

GO 

o 

o 

• t'- 

o 

o 

05 

CO 

oo 

rH 

CO 

o 

o 




rH 

oo 

CM 



O 

CO 

• CO 

o 

o 


o 

00 

00 

05 

o 

o 


oo 


CO 



CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

• t- 

o 

o 

00 

CO 

to 

f-H 

CO 

o 

o 

JD 

rH 


Ci 

o 


CO 



o 

• CM. 

CM 

rr 



to^ 

05 


00 

<M 

o 

’H" 

rH 

CM*" 

<m" 

Tf-" 

CO 

rH 

co"' 


, ^ 

CO*" 

rs 

(M 

CO*' 


of 

CO*" 


of 

CO*' 



rH 





















o 

t'- 

• .o 

00 

. o 

CO 

o 

• o 

O 

o 

o 

• to 

rH 

FT 

o 

o 

Fees 

• 

o 

o 

• to 

oo 

. o 

o 

CO 

• o 

o 

o 

rH 

• 00 



o 

o 


o 


• o 

lO 

• o 

CO 

CO 

• CO 

o 

o 

CO 

• oo 

o 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

rH 

• x>* 

CM 

. o 

rH 

to 

• 00 

o 

o 

CO 

• to 

o 

00 

o 

to 

t**1 

#s 

lO 

m 

05 

t-T 

rH 

• o 

• ^ 

. CO 

rH 

co" 

• 

• 

• 

o 

CO 

• CM 

. tO 

CM 

CO 

o 

CO 

to 

#k 

CO 

• to 

. CO 

Oi> 

rH 

05'' 

QO 

CO 

05 



o 

CO 

(M 

00 

o 

o 

CO 

o 


o 

00 

o 

o 

05 

o 

to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CC 

05 

o 

o 

oo 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

05 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

o 

C3 

o 

rH 

^H 

00 

o 

o 


o 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

oo 


o 

o 

o 


o 


CO 


o 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

o 


o 

o 

CC 

o 

to 

(M 

o 

c> 

o 


CO 

05 


M 

00 


to 

o 

CM 

CM 

CM 




to^ 


CO 

X 

CO 



rH 

cm'' 

cf 

co" 


rH 

CO*" 


to"' 


CO*' 

cm'' 

CO 


c<r 


o' 

m" 

ccT 






o o o o 

o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
O ^ o 

»» •v ^ 

^ C<J Tf CO 

^ I—1 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

(M 00 ^ O 

•V »s ^ 

CO ^ 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
cc^ CS oa OJ 

»oi \S lo 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

<M 00 O 

#s ^ 

CO ^ ^ ^ 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

CO O 00 CO 

^ •S 

Tf CO CO CO 


6 


00 

g 

s 

< 




Urn 

*—• c3 

-sj m 


fl 

o 

o 

o 

• 

a 

^ 2 

GC 

r 

FN 

c3 

o 

O U 

c» 

0) 


o 

H CCJ 



a 

^ ^ fl 

ci o3 


o 

«4-N 

a 





o 

o 

fO 

•O 



H 




a 


V 

0) 

a> 


GO 


> X WJ 

M ^ _o 
w _o ^ 

-T. ^ 


pq ppMpqo OOOO oQOQ QQQW 


t 


From State Statistician. 



































SHERIFF’S TABLE—Continued. 


O 


dS 




o 

o 

o 


• O 

o 

05 


o 


(N 

X 

CO 

1> 

o 

• X 

V. * 


X 

o 

o 

(M 

• o 

4 

o 

o 

(M 

o 

<M 


xc 



o 

• X 

• 




o 

o 

CO 

• o 

o 

XO 


o 

X 

lO 



o 

o 

• xO 

^ c3 

o 


o 

o 

xO 

• o 

o 

xo 

o 

X 

X 



05 

X 

o 

• iO 

2 CT 

X 

C<1 

o 

(M 

(M 

• CO 


X 

(M 

05 

o 

X 


o 

CO 

X 

• xO 



#N 

X 


X 


# ^ 
. I> 



C<l 


X 



lO 

x" 


• ^ 

. cc 




m 




CO '§ 

^ o 
^ ^ ^ 


^ O 

^ o: 


00 

CO 


o 

o 


(M 


lO (M 


O 

o 


00 CO CO (M 
sj ^ CO CO 

m 


CO 

lO 

OQ 


Ci Tt^ 

I> o 


lO O 
CO o^ o 


C<J 


O^ C<J CO o 

oa ^ o 


lO 


iO CO 
CO ‘O 
Tf^ O 


lO O CO 
00 O 00 CO 

00 o o 


uo 00 00 
-r o 
00 r- o:* TT 


05 

01 

CO 


C5C0 iCO r-(’^iOiO CO 


00 

X 


lO 

lO 

lO 


CO 






o o o o 
o o o o 


o o o o 

0X^0 
O X t- X 




O o o 
W o o 


o o o 
o o o 


O o o 

0X0 

(01 O »-H 


0X0 
O iO lO 
(N X 


oi 


O O o o 
o o o o 


o o o 
O o o 


O O M o 
iO »o o o 

■rf O 


o o O 
o o o 

CO QO 


cc • 

"e -S s 
'S ^ k'^ 

^ S'" 
Q- 


o o 
o o 


o o 

(M CO 
Ol 

^ r 


O o o 
O o o 


o o o 
,0 lO o 


o o o 
O (M o 
oi 


O o 

O ^ lO 
X xo »—I 


O O O O 

o o o o 


o o o 
O O o 


0 0X0 

IC o o o 

W ^ X C5 


o O o 
O o o 

lO 


cc 

O 


kP ^ 


CiL 




o 

o 




X 


H 


cc 


X 


m 




• 

• 

• 

f 


oi 


X 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CM 

CM 

M 

X 


CM 











X 

.'1. 








05 

o 

o 

1>- 


05 

xO 


XO 


05 

O 

CM 

CO 

X 

o 

O 


CM 

o 

o 

xO 

CO 

t— 


X 

(M 


M 

o 


XO 

05 

o 

o 

X 


o 

X 


X 

xO 

X 

•M 


1-H 

X 

o 

05 

O 


X 

o 


(M 

o 

o 


!>. 

CO 


t- 

O 

o 

(M 

o 

X 

O 



o 

X 

<N 

X 

CM 


X 


CM 


CM 


f-H 

X 



05 

x^ 


X 

X*" 

#s 

X 

x*" 

X*" 

X*' 

05*' 

X*' 

'rjT 

cm" 

c<r 


CM 

X 

xo" 


x'" 

CO 

CM 

o 

o 

CO 

• 

riH 

X 

CO 

xo 

• 

• 

4 

4 

o 

X 

XO 

r-c 

o 

05 

o 

o 

X 

• 

X 

CO 


X 

• 

4 

4 

• 

4 

o 

xO 

X 


o 


o 

o 


4 


X 

xo 


• 

4 

4 

# 

o 

CO 

CM 

1-H 

o 

CM 


o 


• 

X 

X 

CM 


• 

4 

4 

4 

o 

05 

05 

X 

o 

X 


o 

CO 

4 



»-H 

05 

• 

4 

4 

4 

xo 

CO 

TtH 

o 

xO 


xo' 

xo*" 

CO" 

• 

• 

Co" 

CM*' 

ecT 

co"' 

• 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4S 

oT 

cd" 

X 


cm” 




o o o o 
o o o o 


O Ir^ O 
O CO o 


(M lO "Ct^ O 

X o 


O C<l o o 
0^00 


O O 
O O X 


»o o O 


O C <1 o o 

^ ^ C5*C<1 00 O^ 


O X O X 
O O 
X X CO OQ 


C<1 Tti 1-H O 

o o o 

(M ^ (M 


o 

o 

X 


C5 o o 
X o o 

(M CO 


o o 

O O X 
XXX 


^XXX XXt^X <MX^^ (M^(M 




c? : 


o o o O 
o o o o 


o o o o 
o o o o 


o o o o 
o O O Q 


O O O o 
o o o o 


o o o 
o o o 


o O o o 
o o o o 


^ ^ ^ o 

f § ^ o o CO 

CO uc Tf^ X 


o o o o 
o o o o 

00 X CO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

O O O (M 


o o o o 
o o o o 

TTl (M (M CO 


o o o 
o o o 

X X CO 




a 


0 ) 


0 ) 


5 s 

a 

5 fl 

O 5 

O fci 




C 3 

o o 

eft 

3 ^ ^ 


a> 

c 

a> 


^ O O 

-H 0 Cft U( 

'Zi o ‘r^ 

S c 


b ^ 

fi ^ 

0 ) o 


--^c3o = Gt?i- 

cec«ctf(x> 0)00 

feOOO tiiWWK ffitrjffi 


a c 

.S O 

W Cft 

c 

o 


o 
o 

Cft 

(h 


u 
0 ) 

Cin 

ec - 
^ cd 0) 

*-5 *“5 •-? 


J 

i 


Jennings. 3,400 00 2,400 00 3,000 00 2,400 00 1 100 00 1,600 00 1,878 70 1,878 79 

Johnson. 4,000 00 1,507 00 . 1,507 00 3 760 00 1,240 00 1,507 88 1,507 88 

Knox. 5,000 00 5,000 00 11,179 60 5,060 71 4 1,000 00 1,500 00 5,318 46 5,000 00 

Kosciusko. 5,000 00 4,757 45 5,365 00 4,757 00 2 1,080 00 1,450 00 4,643 02 4,643 02 

Lagrange. 3,400 00 1,756 00 1,900 00 1,756 60 .. 250 00 420 36 1,833 70 1,833 70 












































30 


✓ 


o 

o 

GO 

O 

CO 

!>► 


to 

O 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

to 

• 


to 

to 

o 


• o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

to 

to 


CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 


• 


CO 

o 

o 

o 

• r-i 

o 

00 

o 

o 

M 

o 

o 


CO 


M 


o 

o> 


o 

CO 

CO 

# 

to 

M 


o 

CO 

• to 

o 

Ci 

to 

o 


00 

o 

to 

CO 

to 

00 

to 

o 

o 

GO 

o 


to 


o 

to 

oo 

o 

CO 

• CO 

to 

to 


M 

CO 

tT 

M 


to 

to 

00 


CO 




CO 


• 


CO 

M 

o 

o 

• 1-H 

CO 

00 


#> 















• 




#s 

#s 

• 






M 


00 

M 

-Tf 

M 

CO 

M 

to 

oi 

M 




« 

CO 

r-» 

M 


CO 

• CO 


CO 

i:^ 


CO 

o 

00 

o 

CO 


CO 




o 

CO 

CO 

o 

to 

• 


CO 

to 

00 



o 

1-- 




o 

00 

o 

o 

o 


CO 

CO 

oo 

o 

05 

CO 

00 


• 

• 


oc 

to 


M 

• 

r-H 

Tfi 

00 



M 

c:> 



CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

05 

M 


CO 

CO 

• 

to 


05 



• 

to 


05 

00 

to 

1^ 

00 

a> 

to 

to 

CO 


CO 


05 


o 


to 

• 

o 

CO 

00 

to 

to 

♦ 

CO 

o 

to 



CO 




CO 

00 

0;> 





00 

CO 

05 

♦ 



t> 


05 

# 

rH 

to 

00 

CO 

I>f 


M*" 

oT 

oo*" 

M 

to'' 

of 

CO 


to'' 

M 

oT 

M*' 



# 

• 

CO*" 



co" 

m'' 

• 

c^ 

* ^ 

rH 

CO*" 

G<r 

CO 

t 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

00 

CO 

o 

to 

CO 

M 

# 

o 


M 

o 

o 

o 

o 

« 

to 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

M 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

M 

(M 

t- 

<J^ 

rH 

• 

o 

to 


to 

CO 

o 

o 

• 




CO 

to 


CO 

t •>, 



CO 

M 





rs 

• 







•N 

• 


#> 




#s 

#s 


rs 





M 



!>► 

ff 


1—< 






• 











?-H 

rH 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

; O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

M 

o 

o 

o 

M 


o 

to 


00 

• *o 

GO 

GO 

o 

o 

• 

o 

* to 

o 

o 

o 

»o 

o 

« 

!'>• 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

• CO 



CO 

CO 


M 

• 04 



CO 

CO 


• 

CO 


00 



M 



of 

•N 

to 




• 


• 

• 

i-T 







# 

• 







f 


05 

CO 

M 


05 

• 




CO 

M 


M 

4 

4 

4 




rH 

4 

4 

CO 

4 

4 

M 

to 

4 

4 

-C*H 

CO 


o 

o 


M 

«& 

M 

00 

o 


CO 

to 

»•# 

cb 

to 


CO 



Ow 


05 

o 

05 


o 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 


CO 


04 

o 

00 


05 

M 





CO 

oo 

00 

CO 

t'- 

00 

oo 

o 


o 

to 

00 

M 



05 

05 

CO 

CO 


-Tf 


CO 

M 

to 


o 

to 

o 


I>- 

o 

o 

to 


rr* 

CO 


to 


05 

05 

05 

04 


05 

CO 

CO 

to 

o 

CO 

to 

00 

TT* 

05 


05 

o 

CO 

to 

TT 

o 


CO 

05 




M 


M 

GO 



to^ 

o 

GO 

CO 


CO 


05 


#v 

CO*" 

m" 

05*" 

m" 

M 

lO 

m" 

M*" 

M 

to 

co" 

04*" 

Ol" 



of 

co'' 

r-H 



m" 

m" 

m" 


co" 

to 

00 

to 

o 

05 

• 

• 

CO 


• 


CO 

• 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

05 

GO 

to 

o 


4 

o 

CO 


CO 

o 


« 



o 

4 


r-^ 

4 

to 

o 


o 

to 

GO 

CO 

CO 

05 

o 

4 

o 

05 

to 

to 

o 

CO 

# 

# 

# 

4 


1-- 

• 


CO 

t 

o 

o 

M 

o 

M 

05 

CO 

o 

CO 

GO 

4 

4 

o 


05 

o 

o 

05 

• 

4 



• 

05 

CO 

4 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

00 

M 

o 

!>• 

4 

o 

CO 

GO 

CO 

to 



4 

CO 

CO 

4 

CO 

GO 

4 

o 

to 


to 


rr 



CO 

to 

4S 

4 

00 

rv 

05 

co" 

m" 

CO 


« 

« 

4 

4 

CO*" 

rs 

CO 

4 

# 

•if 

m" 

4 

4 



m" 



M 

CO*" 

•s 

M 

co" 

CO 

4 

» 





Ut) 

iO 


IC' 

o- 


CO 


o o o ^ o 

O 00 CO o o 

O O lO O 'MO 

O ^ lO o 

M uo ^ O ^ ^ 

^ ^ #N rs ^ #s 

CO M 00 M ^ 

M 


CO O O CO CO 

M O O »—' O 

O O o i-^ 

W«> 

O M 1—I 
M oa lO CO M 


O ct ^ 
O ^ ^ 


O 

o 


O M 

CO CO ^ 


rr GO I 


M CO 


^ t-- o o o 

O GO O <X> 

to o o o 

o 'x:- tO o ^ 

O CO o ^ 

■h ^ rv •N 

^ rf M 


o ^ rt^ O lO 

I'- 00 00 O o 

^ O O lO 

3; a:> O iO 

a:. GO lo 

or of ^ CO of 


o o o o 
o o o o 


o o o 
o o o 

M 


o 

o 

M 


l_^ ^ ^ 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
o ^ M -to 

•N ^ 

CO ^ CO 
M 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

CO GO CO 


O o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
T^1 o CO 


o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

O CO GO Ol M 


o O o o o 
O O o O o 

O O o O o 
O O o O o 
CO M o O o 


^ -^ftOCOOl ^n^MCOCO ^ CO CO ^ ^ M'^ic^-tf 


a> 

cC 


<v 

o 

a 

c3 


0) 

o 

c 

a> 

fe: 


hJ J 


n5 

C3 


00 O 


Sm 

c3 


5 a-: 

a 

ci 


C/J 

Urn 

cC 






a> 

o 

c 

o 


u 

0) 

g 

o 

"c 

o 


cC 

tc 

o 


UH ^ ^ 


O' 

sc 


0) 

3 

o 

:zi 


J3 

c 


4 

OJ 

tuo 

o 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 


• fH 


3 

4 

G 

/I'l 

a> 

rbd 

>% 

u 

6 

u 

0) 

>> 

0) 

riii 

CO 

d 

d 

c 

3 

>% 

05 



Ul 


K/ 


cc 



d 

o- 

u 


cS 

«X) 

• -H 

o 

o 

o 

r* 




c 



0^ 

CU 

a. 


Oh 

M 

s 


43 

CO 

D 


Wrom State Statistician. 













































SHEtltFF’S TABLE—Continued. 


40 




tO 

0 

to 

0 

0 

0 

• 

00 

CO 

0 

t-* 


0 


0 

0 

CO 

CO 

0 

(M 

0 


05 



00 

0 


0 

0 

0 

• 

05 

CO 

0 


0 

0 


0 

0 


0 

0 

CO 

0 

0 

00 

• 



0 

01 

0 

0 

0 

• 

• 


00 

0 


t^ 

0 

CO 

0 

0 

CO 

05 

0 

05 

0 

Tf* 

r- 

HO 


CO 

0 

CO 

0 

0 

0 

« 

0 

CO 

0 

to 


0 

CO 

0 

0 

rf 

CO 

0 

05 

0 

04 

05 

S . 0 (f 


00 

rf< 

05 

CO 

0 

(M 

CO 

CO 

QO 

V 

00 

• 

• 

(M 

#s 

(M 


to 

(M 

(M 

CO 

to 

#* 

0 

:o 

#K 

to 

0 

CO 

00 

CO 

CO 



CO 

CO 

co' 

of 

ft; 























CO 

CO 

























O 

• 

lO 


tO 


0 


• 

00 

CO 

1 - 


CO 

to 


05 


CO 

CO 

t- 

CO 

CO 


CO 


w 

V 

00 

05 

1-H 

to 


CO 

• 

05 

CO 

oi 


0 

CO 

•rt- 

to 

1-^ 


0 

00 

0 


05 

GO 


s? 

h>* 

00 

(M 

rf 

tO 

to 

• 

• 


QO 

05 


00 

00 

co 

CO 

rt^ 

CO 

05 

CO 

04 

CO 


00 


.V 

CO 


CO 




• 

0 

CO 

CO 

tO 

to 


CO 


CO 

Tt» 

CO 

CO 

!>* 

CO 

0 

Tf 




05 

05 

iO 

5 

r-^ 

• 



05 


CO 

CO 

to 

CO 

»o 

00 

CO 

to 

CO 

to 

I> 



0 



CO 

(M 


05 

• 

• 

#s 

01 

t- 



CO 

C<f 

0 


(M 

CO*" 


05" 

t-f 


co'' 

CO 



m 





















QO 

CO 



























• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

.—v 

0 

• 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

05 

**•0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

to 

0 

0 

• 

# 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

04 



0 

0 

0 

0 

CO 

• 

• 

0 

00 

0 

0 

to 

0 

0 


• 

# 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

04 



0 

0 

<M 

0 

05 

• 

0 

CO 

00 

»o 

0 

0 


• 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


0 

tO 


05 rH 



CO 

t- 


• 

to 

05 

0 

CO 

CO 

CO 

<M 

• 

• 

tO 

04 

tO 

to 

CO 



05 




r-H 

•V 



• 

• 

r“i 


T—1 



co" 


• 

• 

• 

• 




#s 


«s 

rH 

CO 

(M 




























0 

0 

0 

0 

tO 

0 

0 

0 

p 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

« 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

to 


CC • 

0 

0 

0 

0 

05 

0 

0 

0 


0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

• 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

05 

* 


0 

0 

0 

0 


0 

0 

Cl 

0 

0 

# 

♦ 

0 

0 

0 

• 

• 

0 

« 

* 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

to 



0 

0 

00 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CO 

01 

tO 

« 

0 

CO 

01 

• 

0 

• 

0 

0 

tO 

CO 

0 

r-- 

c 


CO 

(M 

Tt* 


rf^ 

to 

CO 

tc 

CO 

CO 

• 


CO 

00 

• 

to 

f 

to 

1 - 

1- 

CO 

GO 

0^ 


q 

m 

•N 




•s 





• 

(M 


#> 

to 

• 

• 


# 

• 


#v 




co" 



























. ^ 


'ts 

cc 'W 

g 


t-H 

to 

CO 

rH 

04 

# 

• 

rH 


CO 

• 

• 

♦ 

• 

04 

• 

# 


• 

« 

CO 

• 

• 

04 

CO 

04 

• 

• 

04 

00 

0 


CO 

0 

0 



CO 

to 


01 

0 

0 

'^' 

0 

CO 

to 

0 

0 

0 

0 

CO 

05 


05 

to 

0 

to 

rH 

to 

CO 

0 

00 

0 


00 

0 

CO 

05 

to 

0 

0 

■0 

04 

to 

05 

QO 

CO 

CO 

05 

0 

00 

0 

t-H 


04 

05 

QO 

0 

oH 

QO 


rt^ 

0 

to 


05 

04 

CO 

CO 

1 *- 

r^ 

0 

04 


CO 


CO 

05 


0 

05 

05 

0 


to 

0 

0 

05 

0 

CO^ 

CO 



t- 

0 


04 

0 

CO^ 

04 

05 


rr 

'05 

0 

0 




04 *" 

♦x 

04 

co" 

c^ 

to 

rJH*' 

^H 

cc 

cc 

rs 

of 

CO*' 


co'' 

of 

04" 

04 *" 

t-- 

co' 

co'" 

04" 


a:> 


o 

o 

o 

CO 

CC 




lO 


CO 


CTi 

O 

o 


CO CO lO 

o cr- 
oo a> 

CO TT 


CO 


CO Oi 


lO oo 

^ lo ' C^ CO ccT 


CO CO Oi 

^ CO lO ^ lO CO 

Oi o 00 QO CO 

^ o:) to CO ^ ^ 

CO CO CO Oi 


»o 




CTi 

o 

a:> 

CO 


O o o 

O o OD 


O O 

s 

^ o 


o 

CO 

iO 


O O O 01 
(M O O 

'rtH O O 
— ^ O 00 
(M C:. O 1—' 


CO ^ CO oc5^ CO CO 


(M 

CO 

o 

(M 

m 


^ . 

Pi ^ 

^ tt 


t 

* 

-2 ^ 


to o 

iO i> 

CO to a: 
oi 
o;> 




o o 

O to 

O CO 
O CO 
(M CO 


of c<r of co" 


O O o o o 

O O o o o 

O o o o o 

O O o o o 

O CO (M (M 

(cf cf CO 


o 

o ^ 


O to 

05 CO 


CO 


CO 05 o CO o 

*—I o o »—• 

^ 1—' uo 


to 


CO CO 


o o o o o 
o o o o o 

o o o o o 
o o o o o 
QO oi o o o 


o o 

O 


^ O) O 05 
CO ^ O 05 

(M to C<l 01 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

O O 01 CO 


o O CO lO 

O O 05 

O O ^ CO 
O O 05 05 
Ol Tf ^ 05 


o o o o 
o o o o 

O ^ o to 
O to o 
^ o ^ t- 


cot'- t 0 (M 01 (M cOCOCOOl 


O O o o 
O O o o 

o o o o 
O O P o 
(M o 01 o 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

(M CO 'X) 


t-«*^C0CO'^ (Me<ICOO tOCO'^’^ co^coco 


00 

C5 

CO 

05 ^ 

to 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

05 

CO 


?s 

a 


« 

• 

w 

# 


# 


p. 

• 



• 

p 

O) 

• 


(D 

O' 

<D 

X 



CJ 

P 

ISh 

rO 

0 

0 

0 

<0 

<v 

0) 

Oh 

c« 

0 


c» 


GG 

c» 

c/} 

(/: 


= ■1 

05 


cO 


N 


05 

o 

o 

ct 

o a 
^ o 

p- 3 

> IT I-* 


c 

P o 

^ 05 

5 3 

W fcn 


o 

bX) 


S C3 05 


M 

X 

?3 

P 

q; 

0 

bo 
P 
• ^ 

• 

(D 

P 


Sh 


X 

>> 


c3 

c3 


a 







X 


05 

05 Jp 


05 -p 


c>3 

< 4 -^ 

o 

H 


J 


•From state Statistician. 


















































41 


RECORDERS’ FEES AND SALARIES. 

The figures given in this table were taken from the reports of Re¬ 
corders to the Fee and Salary Commission and from the reports of 
the Auditors thereto, relating to the fees turned in by the Recorders 
and the salaries paid them for the two years, from March 1, 1897, to 
March 1, 1899. 

In addition to the salary provided by law and the payment thereon 
from fees collected the Recorders obtained, on an average, from $50 
to $100 the year for making ceidificates, abstracts and acknowledg¬ 
ments. This was not reported to the Auditor or turned into the 
Treasury, but retained by the Recorders as compensation for the work 
done. 


RECORDER’S TABLE. 


42 


i; -i <3 

2 Cl, 




cc 




CO 


3^g 


^<4 




(MOO 
cr- 00 O 

(M O 

o o o 

00 00 M 

#v ^ 

O (M (M 


CO 


iO 

l> 1—i 


O t'- Tfl 
iO lO 
CO 

cP C^ M* 


o o o o 
O O o o 

O O o o 
O O LO o 
00 O Oi o 


o o o o 
O iO o o 


O CO o o 
O (M 00 O 
(X O 00 


(M CO 


O O X 
Ci »-H o 

^ CO o 
t>* X 00 o 
CO O O (M 




o ^ 
o o 


o 

o 


IC 


o 

o 

o 

o 


(M X IM CO lO 


lO lO o 

iO o ^ 

tc w 00 
O O M 
CO CO 


X ^ M X iO 


o o o o o 

o o o o o 

O O o o 

O O o X o 

O 00 o — 


o 

o 


o 

lO 

o 

O 

lO 

o 



X 

o 

X 

X 

o 



CO 

o 

X 

t- 

o 


(M 

X 

o 

CO 

LO 

o 


<M 

lC 


o 


o 


lO 


x" 


(M" 

x*' 


o 

lO 


o 

lO 


• 


X 


X 

X 

o 

• 

• 


CO 

—* 

X 

1^ 

Ci 

# 

(M 

X 


CO 

lO 


• 

<M 

LO 

»—• 

o 


X 

• 

lO' 


lo"" 


of 

x" 

« 

O 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

lO 


lO 

lO 

o 

o 

iO 

o 

• 


o 


Oi 

X 


o 
lO o 

t- o 

iO o 

c<r 


1 > iO 
lO <M 

lO CO 

^ M 

»v 

M 


2 
o o 

o o 
o o 
^ o 


o 

o 


iO 


l>- lO 
X M O CO 

00 I'- o 

CO X W ^ 
^ ^ 

CO f—^ 


^ ^ ^ iO 

|>* lO CO ^ 

X M CO 

X X CO ^ 

#iK #V ^ 

r-i f—I X ♦—, 


O O O o 
O O O o 

O O O o 
O O o 

O M 


•C^ 


00 .• 

^ 5^ 

•-s» 

st:^ 


o 

o 

O' 

o 

iC 


o o 
o o 

o o 

O lO 


o 

o 

o 

• o 

o 

• o 

o 

• o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

; 

o 

• o 

o 

• o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

ct> 

o 

• X 

o 

• o 

o 

• o 

o 

• 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

♦ 

o 

• LO 

lO 

. lO 

LO 

• 

o 


o 

o 

cc 

o 

o 


lO 


o 

• CO 

• 

• 

X 

• 

• 

• 

X 

• 

• 

X 

• 

4 

4 

CO 

X 

#s 

<M 

(M 


»o 




CO 

/-0« -* 


O O 


CO iO CO XX 



4 

o 


CO 

LO 

X) 


o 

CO 

CO 

rH 



CO 

X 




“«o 


o 

CO 

o 


C5 

oi 

LO 

CO 

X 


o 

X 

o' 

(M 

OJ 



m 

r —1 




o 

(M 

»o 

lO 



o 

CO 

X 


cc 

4 

H 

a 

CO 

X 





M 

lO 

X 

LO 



X 

o" 

x" 

(M'' 








. 

Q • — 


o o o 

O O CO 


o 

o 


- 


o o ^ 

O O O' 

o 


o 
- o 

CO M 


M I" 




o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

^ CO O X (M 

m'' i>r of (m" 


O' 


o 

0) 


a> 

a 


I—^ ^ 

M 


o 

o 

G 

a> 

m 


CO 


o 


X LO 
lO 

o 

X ^ 


l> o 

CO 

X lO 

LO 

r- O 

x"" 


o o 
o o 

o o 
o o 

X 


M (M <M X 


o o 
o o 

o o 
o o 

X ^ 

^ #s 

<M X 


4 

4 


M 

4 

X 

CO 

4 

4 

(M 


4 

4 

CM 


nH 

X 




o 

CO 

LO 

X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

o 

LO 

o 

LO 

o 

o 


X 


IM 


lO 

<M 

o 


o 

X 

o 


LO 

CM 

CO 

LO 


o 


X 


X 




X 

CO 

o 

o 

I>- 



CM 

LO 

CO 

o 

o 

X 

M 

(M 

X 


LO 

X 

lO 

X 

lO 

X 



CO 

o 

M 

X 

CO 



lO 



X 

X 

CO 


oi 

X 

X 

CO 


x'' 

#s 

'cr 

m" 

x" 

lO 


LO 

vs 

(M 

cm" 


x" 

cm'' 

vs 

vs 

rH 


VV 

X 

o 

X 


X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

X 


o 


lO 

CM 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

(M 

CO 

lO 

o 

o 


X 


X 


X 


X 

t- 

o 

o 


«— H 


CM 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

X 

(M 

<M 

o 


r- 

I'- 

lO 


lO 

X 

<M 

t- 

o 

o 

Ol 


CO 

'Tt^ 

CM 




o 

X 

I'- 


CM 


X 



x*" 


(M 

CO 

LO'' 


vs 

lO 

M 

CM*" 


vs 

X 

cm'' 


vs 

1—1 

x"' 

o 

o 

o 

X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

X 

o 

o 

'Cf 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

o 

CO 

lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 


o 

X 

o 

o 

o 


o 


CM 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

X 

o 

o 


o 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

o 



o 


X 

X 

CO 


CO 

LO 


-cf' 

X 

o 


rfH 


co^ 

X 

o 


(M'' 

x'' 

c^r 

x" 

x" 


x"' 

(M" 

cm" 

x" 

lo" 

cm" 




ex' 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

X 

X 



CO 

(M 


X 

X 

o^ 


co^ 


CM 

'rr* 



(M" 

X 

X 

x*" 

x^ 

of 

x'" 

(M 

(M" 

x" 

LO" 

cm" 

vs 

vs 

CM 

CO 

x" 


o 

CJ 


fl 

fe: 

o 

u 


lO 


lO 

o 

X 


lO 


o 

o 

o 

o 


u 


o 
fl 


pqpqwo CJOOO 


no 

u 

o 

«4-H 

u 

o 


CO 

CO 

<X) 

> 

cj 


G 

4 

4 

<v 

4 

4 

4 

• • 

• • 

0) 

• ^ 

O o 



CO 




1— H 


• 

c3 



Sh c3 



o 



G 

G 

o 





^ o 

o 

0) 

a> 

O) 




(^ -2 

o 

Q C 

G 

G 

G 

w 


C^H 


c 








































Fulton. 2,400 00 2,400 00 3,213 80 3,213 80 1 . 1,200 00 3,213 80 2,400 00 

Gibson. 3,200 00 3,200 00 4,639 30 3,918 25 2 800 00 800 00 3,918 25 3,200 00 

Grant... 6,600 00 6,600 00 . 1,036 02 5 1,600 00 1,700 00 11,036 02 6,600 00 

Greene. 3,000 00 3,000 00 4,530 90 4,530 90 4 300 00 1,200 00 3,952 60 3,000 00 

Hamilton. 3,800 00 3,800 00 5,827 55 3,827 35 3 1,048 00 852 00 5,843 60 3,800 00 


43 


O 

O 

o 

o 

GO 


lO 

I 

lO 


o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

O 

O' 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

# 



o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

t'- 

LO 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 


o 


o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

* 


X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 




X 


X 

CO 

X 


• 

X 

X 

X 

(M 



X 

J>. 

LO 









#s 

•> 








C<J 

CM 

X 

X 

X 

X 

(M 

# 

(M 


• 

X 

X 



X 

(M 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

X 

o 

o 

• 

o 


o 

lO 

lO 

O 

X 

o 

o 

o 




o 

o 

X 

• 




X 


05 



lO 

o 

X 


r-H 

o 




o 

CO 


M 

»o 


X 

o 


o 

M 



lO 

X 

CD 

• 


X 

CO 

05 

CO 

o 

’rr' 




o 



CO 



• 


X 

05 

X 

X 

LO 

05 


lO 

" of 

CO 


CO 

Tjf 



• 

• 

of 

1—M 

cf 


"Cjf 

cf' 

x" 

X 

c<r 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o> 

# 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

M 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

iO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

# 

(N 

o 

o 

-f 

o 

o 

lO 


X 

CD 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

05 

• 

O 



05 

CO 

X 


■05 


05 

05 

o 

X 

CO 

05 


• 







•» 












r-^ 





t-H 









o 

• 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

« 

o 

o 

O 

o 

# 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o> 

o 

• 

o 


o 

• 

o 

o 

O 

o 

• 

X 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

# 

• 

o 

o 

O 

o 

• 


o 

o 

CD 

o 

o 

lO 

• 

M 



• 

o 

CO 

O 

X 

• 

• 

• 

CD 

X 

CO 

LO 

LO 

CD 

X 

• 

• 

X 

CO 

CD 

• 

4 

• 


X 

CD 


o 

o 




CC (M (75 (N ^ 




CO o 


lO O O 
O O O 

lO o ^ 

CO lO 

CO CO 


O o O lO 

LO O ^ 
CO LO 

^ 00 
CO 


o o o o 

CO oo c:* O 

05 O o ^ 
00 CO CO 
CO 05 CO CO 


O O O LO 
!>• w O lO 

^ Tf O C5 
O LO 
o ^ Ol LO 


00 o o 

CO O lO CO 

O O CO 
10 10*^05 
o t- C5 O 


CO(MCO -^lO^CO » CO^OOl lOCOC^IC'I 


LO o o 

O O' o 

LO O ^ 
CO O ^ 
00 


o o o o 

lO C5 o !>• 

CO CO CO 
CO CO 05 *—1 
CO t- !>• t- 


O O o o 

05 GO 05 O 

CO 05 05 

CO 05 
05 CO C5 


O O O LO 
t-- lO O lO 

O ^ 
lO lO o O 
^ CO (M CO 


00 o o rr 

CO O lO CO 

O O CO CO 
lO lO rf^ 05 
O 05 CO 


COOICO Tt^LO^CO ‘^lOOQ’^ CO'^COO^ lOCOO^C*! 


o o o 
o o o 

o o o 
o o o 
00 ^ 00 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
W o c o 

GO CO O 


O O O o 

O O 05 o 

O O 05 CO 
O O CO CO 
(M GO CO GO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

(X (M (M 


O O o 
0 0^0 

o O LO o 

O LO 05 O 
X 05 CO 


XCOXCO CO 0^ CO CO 


o O' o 
o o o 

o o o 

^ s 

X ^ CO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
^ X o o 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

(M X O 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
o o o o 
XC<JC<1C<1 


O O O o 

O O O o 

o o o o 
o o o o 

X O O CO 


C< 1 C^C<I XXXCO C<JXC 0 C <1 (CiCOXO^ 


• 

# 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

• 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

• 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

• 

• 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

• 

# 

4 

4 

4 

xn 

4 

4 

4 

c 

M 

D 

4 

4 

O 

o 

• fH 

4 

o 

o 

00 

• ^ 
Sh 



c 


a 

c 



o 

05 

K ffi 

hH 

NH 



o 

^ to ^ 
5 o 

^ 5!s 

Cv 

^ a ^ 
^ o 


u 

o 

Cu 

cc 


OD ^ 

o ^ S 

w O O 

tH £ 

,05 fl c 

>> 5c c -c 


o 

4 

D 

4 

m 

4 

4 

D 

00 

tc 

4 

4 

05 

C5 

C 

O 

o 

d 

4 

05 

S-i 

O 

05 

Sh 

CO 

bX) 


Oh 


O 

c5 

cj 

d 

c3 


h-3 






From State Statistician. 




































RECORDER’S TABLE—Continued. 


44 




O O iO o 
o o a* o 

0 0-^0 
O O CO o 
O CO 00 

•s rs 

^ (M 1-H (M 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

# 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

cr. 

CC 


05 

CO 

o 

o 

00 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

GO 

• 

00 

05 

o 

o 


QO 

o 

o 

o 

o 



• 

lO 


o 

o 

t--* 

CC 



00 

00 

lO 



CO 

o 


o 

CC 


CC 

(M 

rH 

of 


^-1 

• 

• 

CM*" 

of 

of 

CO 

of 


o 

o 

o 

o 

00 



• 

o 

CO 

lO 

o 

o 

iO 

o 

o 

ic 

o 

to 

• 

o 

to 

o 

to 

to 




tH 


05 

o 

iO 

o 

rH 


05 

CC 

♦ 

05 


CO 


00 



lO 


G <1 

00 

CO 


»o 

CO 


05 

00 

• 

• 

00 


C<l 






lO 

CC 

CC 

o 

05 

00 

CC 

o 

1 -- 


• 

to 



00 



CO 

CC 

•N 

05 

o 

lO 



CO 

kO 

iO 

iO 

9 

9 

CO 

rH 


o 

CO 


o 


CC 


iO 



(M 

c 4 ' 

CC 


rH 

• 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CC 

CM 


iO 

o 

!>. 

Oi 

of 




^ H 


Cc 


o 

o 

00 


o o o 
o o o 


O O (M 

CO iC <x> o 
a;> GO 

CN 

CO 


o o o o 
o o o o 

o o o o 
O O LO o 

CC CO 00 o 


o o o o 
o o o o 

O O iO 

O 00 o 
GO <M I-H o 


o o o 
O o o 

o o o 
o o o 

t-h <M 00 


o o o 
o o o 

O o o 
o o 00 

(N 


CO .♦ 


o 


• o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

9 

o 

• o 

• o 

. o 

o 

o 

o 

; O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 

9 

o 

• o 

• o 

. o 

o 

M 

o 

- CO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

9 

• 

9 

lO 

• o 

’ o 

! o 

o 


to 

• 05 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

9 

9 


• o 

. o 

. o 

(M 

co^ 

05 ^ 

o 

• tO 

• 

• 

oo 

CC 

CO 

CC 

CO 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 


♦ 

9 

9 

• 

• 

• 

. 

9 

9 

tH 


o C 
• ^ 

^ Tf (N 

fei^ - 




cc 




05 


o 

(M 


(N ^ (M i-H CO 


CO 


C<1 



o 

CO 

to 

o‘ 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

to 

to 

lO 

to 

o 

o 

to 


o 

00 


o 

o 


00 

CO 

CO 

05 

o 


CO 

05 



05 


o 



CO 

CM 

o 


CO 




05 

to 


CM 

oc 

CO 


CO 

to 

00 


o 


CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

GO 

GO 


TT 

CM 

CO 

05 

o 

oc 

(M 

00 


3 

o 

#v 

CO 

m 


05 

1-^ 

CO 

CO 


M 

o 

CO 

CO 

to 

lO 

#s 

1-H 

rH 

00 

(M 

of 

CO 

4 K 

cm 

o 

CO*' 

CO 

04 

co" 

o 

CO 


o 

CO 

to 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

to 

00 

to 

to 

to 

to 

• 

o 

o 

• 

o 


-H 

o 

o 


rH 

CO 

CC 

CJ5 

o 

CO 

CO 

(M 


to 

• 


o 



VO 

(M 

o 


CO 

GO 



05 

to 

(M 

CM 


00 


• 

• 

CO 

o 


o 

vO 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

to 

00 

00 



o 

CO 

to 

o 

o 

♦ 

00 

o 

V. 1 

o 

CO 

m- 


05 

w 

rH 

#v 

rt- 

IH 

cc"" 


(M 

o 

cc"" 

CO 

lO 

to 

rH 

00 

00 

#s 

(M 

of 

CO 

cf 

CO 

• 

• 

• 

CO 

00 

(M 


o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

to 

o 

o 

to 

to 


o 

o 

o 

> 9 

o 

o 

rH 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

o 

rH 

o 

05 


o 

05 

o 

o 


o 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

to 


o 

00 

GO 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

cS 

o 

o 

CC 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 





H * 

o 

o 

(M 

o 

o 

o 

to 

CM 

m 

GO 

(M 

05 

rH 

CC 

CM 

00 

#N 

CM 

CM 

CO 

M 

00 

rH 

00 

CM 

to 

to 

#v 

rH 

CO 

of 

o 

(M 

CO 

(M 

co" 

CO 

c<r 

(M 

of 

00 

of 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

* 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

(M 

CN 

00 

00 

M 


GO 

#% 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 



o 

CO 

<M 

#s 

00 


to 

(M 

CM 

(M 

(M 

CM 

CO 

M 

rH 

(M 


(Of 

(M 

M 

cm" 

(M 

co'' 

(M 

(M 

cf 




<- 

a 


c3 

^■4 


<p 


u 

• ^ 

o 

X 

H) 

s 

4 -t 

Ln 

4-1 


c 

CC 


• ^ 

o 


>% 

Sm 

O) 

3 
o c 
bo C3 
t; to 

o o 


fl 

o ^ 


^ -2 


0 ) 
s ^ 


^oo6 


a> 




9 

• 

• 

• 

• 


d 

• 

• 

05 


X 

fl 

c^ 

05 

■w 

0 ) 


a 



X 



• -H 

o 

o 

o 

d 


Ph 

d- 

pin 

PlH 


Randolph. 3,000 00 3,000 00 5,667 26 5,667 26 1 300 00 1,200 00 1,635 31 730 00 

Ripley. 2,800 00 2,537 95 2,537 95 2,459 45 .. . 1,400 00 2,537 95 2,537 95 

Rush. 2,800 00 2,800 00 3,342 00 3,358 00 1 300 00 1,100 00 3,246 81 2,818 00 

Scott. 1,400 00 1,048 00 1,153 55 1,048 00 1 Half fees. 400 00 860 55 860 55 

Shelby. 2,800 00 2,800 00 2,898 50 2,842 65 3 550 00 850 00 2,842 00 2,800 00 








































Spencer. 2,800 00 2,800 00 2,960 65 2,931 90 1 175 00 1,225 00 2,971 28 2,800 00 

Starke. 1,400 00 1,400 00 2,589 45 2,589 45 1 270 00 430 00 2,589 45 1,400 00 

Steuben. 2,200 00 2,200 00 1,362 30 1,362 30 1 200 00 900 00 2,954 85 2,200 00 

St. Joseph. 5,400 00 5,400 00 8,185 00 8,160 00 5 1,425 00 1,275 00 8,960 10 5,400 00 

Sullivan. 2,800 00 2,800 00 3,591 55 3,591 55 1 700 00 1,400 00 . 


45 


o 

o 

o 


lO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 


o 

o 



o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 




o 

o 




o 

o 

O' 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

(M 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 


o 

o 

!>• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 


o 

o 

a:> 


o 


00 


CO 


o 

o 

CO 

kO 

o 



















CO 


CO 


iO 

CO 



(M 


CO 

C<J 

(M 

o 

CO 

C<l 

o 

o 

CO 


lO 

lO 

o 

o 


o 

lO 



o 

kO 

o 






CO 

o 

(M 

rH 


o 


CO 


CO 

Ol 


o 


lO 


CO 

(M 

oo 

o 



o 


CO 


o 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO- 

o 

l> 

kO 

CO 

!>• 


CO 


o 

kO 

irH 

o 


Oi 

(M 


CO 


CO 

Oi 


(M 


00 

CO 

(M 












•s 






1>* 



CO 



lO 

(M 



lO 

CO 


ca 

CO 

CO 

CO 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

• 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

(M 

kC 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kC 

o 


• 

o 


o 

o 

C<l 

lO 



o 

o 

o 

o 

(M 

o 


# 

• 

CC 

o 




CO 

o:- 

00 

o 

(M 


o 


o 

of 

o 

m 

• 

o 

o 

• 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 


• 

o 

o 

• 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

iO 


o 

o 

o 

lO 

o 

CO 

kO 

o:> 

(M 

kO 

• 

o 

GO 

• 

o 

00 

iO 

CO 

!>. 

o 

o 

o 

o 


-o 

♦ 

• 

• 

(M 


• 

• 

• 

o 


o 


CO 

kO 

C<1 

kO 

iO 

00 



• 

CO 

rH 

• 

kO 

rH 

CO 

CO 

rH 

rH 

rH 

CO 

04 

04 

rH 

00 

• 



• 












rH 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

kO 


o 

o 

kjO 

o 

05 



o 

kO 

kO 

CO 

CO 

04 

o 

CO 

00 

rH 

o 


CO 


rH 

kO 


o 

CO 

OI 

00 

!>• 

rH 

kO 

kC 

CO 

r- 


05 

CO 

o 

oi 

CO 

00 

CO 

00 


CO 

rH 

04 

rH 

rH 

05 

o 

rH 

r-^ 

1> 

o 

o 


CO 

rH 

CO 

CO 

rH 

04 

kO^ 

00 

CO 


#s 

f-H 

rv 

CO 


CO 

OI 


•s 

kO 

04 

CO 

04 

kO 

ccT 


04 

iS 

CO 
















CO 







* 










o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

^H 

o 

o 

kO 

CO 

00 



o 

kO 

kO 


CO 

04 

o 

00 

Ci 

oo 

o 

05 

00 


rH 

kO 

TtH 

0:> 

OJ 


00 

CO 

rH 

C:» 

rH 

CO 


05 

04 

kO 

oo 

CO 

o 

OI 

!>• 

00 

-f 

0 

t- 


rH 

rH 

00 

rH 

05 






o 

C<l 

CO 

rH 

!>► 

CO 

04 

01 

kO 

00 

CO 


i>r 

#s 

CO 


CO 

OJ 

t> 

kO 

04 

CO 

04 

kO 

CO 


of 

CO 
















CO 

















o 


o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

05 

05 


o 

o 

kO 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 


rH 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

kO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

^H 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

GO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

04 

o 

o 

o 

o 



o 

o 

o 

o 



00 


00 


o 

o 

CO 

CO 


rs 

rH 


CO 


CO 

of 

iO 

CO 

#s 

04 

04 

04 

Hf 

CO 

of 

of 

cc 
















04 

















o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o‘ 

o 

o 

o 

o 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 


oo 

o 


00 


CO 

00 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

00 

of 

#N 

co" 



OI 

rs 

kO 

CO 

of 

04 

of 


c^ 

04 

04 

ko" 

o 
















CO 




















O) 

o 

c 

oi 

a 

a> 

Cu 


tc 

u 

d 

O) 


o ^ B 


CC r 


a 


o 

to 


cc 

cd 


o 
• 1^ 


to 

C 


C 

> > > ^ ^ ^ 






o ^ 






O 

H 


d 

o 


QQ 

• 

CZ5 


ed 

CO 


a 

o 

Pm 







































COMMENTS ON TABLES. 


It being assumed tliat the Clerk, Sheriff or Eecorder never fails to 
tax the fee he is allowed under the law, for any service he performs, 
the taxation re])resented in the above tables can be accepted as the 
resources of each office named; yet, it is not altogether an accurate 
demonstration of services performed, since it is the custom of some 
Clerks and Sheriff's to enter no taxation on their books unless there 
is a fair probability of collecting it. Others enter every fee whether 
there is a probability of collection or not. This uncertainty of taxa¬ 
tion applies chiefly to State cases and divorce suits; where costs are 
imposed U2>on defendants, in criminal prosecutions, it is the opinion 
of Clerks and Sheriff's that not more than one-tenth of the costs is 
collected. Hence, if the defendant has no property out of which the 
cost can be made, the taxation of such costs is not entered. The same 
is true of divorce suits; therefore, much work done by Clerks and 
Sheriffs is not included in the above figures nor can anything like 
a safe estimate of costs covering sucli work be made, as many officers 
have no record of it. 

Another distinction to be observed are the varying methods of taxa¬ 
tion. One Cderk or Sheriff' who pays his per diem and court allow¬ 
ances into the Treasury, and draws them back on salary, will include 
them in his taxation and collection of fees, while another who retains 
these payments and makes no report of them to the Auditor, will omit 
them from his taxation and collection of fees. In many instances of 
the former method the collection of fees taxed would not meet the sal¬ 
ary allowed, while in some instances of the latter method, per diem 
and allowances retained in addition to fees about cover deficiencies 
in salary, and in others give the officers considerable sums over their 
salaries. 

An additional fact worthy of note in this connection is, that while 
the rule has been to tax fees only on the probability of collection, col¬ 
lection itself has suffered from repeated violations of the law in with¬ 
holding issuance of fee bills, if not altogether, as long as possible. 

As to fee bills, the law requires under Section 129 that ^Tt shall be 
the duty of the Clerk, within sixty days after Judgment shall have 
been rendered, to issue fee bills for all costs taxed in favor of any Clerk 
or Sheriff, and place the same in the hands of the Sheriff of the county 
where such party resides or may have property for collection.’’ 

The same rule ai)plies to other officers. 

The observance of this section has been far from uniform, but it 
would be doing an injustice to the efficient and conscientious offi- 


47 


cers not to mention the fact that they have closely fulfilled the law in 
this respect as well as in all others. It is not necessary to extend com¬ 
ment on why the law has not been followed in the, issuance of 
fee bills. This non-fulfillment of duty can be attributed to any one of 
three causes—neglect, unwillingness or leniency. Unwillingness has 
had, perhaps, more to do with the violation than either of the other 
causes, for it is apparent that the officers, for the most part, whose sal¬ 
aries are contingent upon fees collected, purpose to collect no more 
than would meet their salaries and cover deficiencies thereon. 


THE OLD SYSTEM. 

That this is true is established by the following comparison of re¬ 
turns of earnings by County Clerks reported in 1894 to the County 
Officers’ Association with those reported to this Commission. 

‘^‘■’What did your office pay in 1890?” was asked of Clerks by the As¬ 
sociation. In that year the officers named had the benefit of all fees 
and, of course, they were energetic, constructive and vigilant in collec¬ 
tions. The Montgomery County Clerk ten years ago under the old fee 
system, had a total average yearly revenue of $6,000. Under the law 
of ’95 his salaiw is $2,800, to pay which he collects, on an average, 
$4,800 under an average taxation of $7,000. The taxation and col¬ 
lection, though less, are made under a more liberal schedule than 
that when the fees were the property of the officers. The Boone 
County Clerk, in 1890, earned in fees $3,500, and now to meet a salary 
of $2,600 collects on an average $2,900 under a taxation of $5,000. 
The Harrison County Clerk, ten years ago, could and did make $3,000 
yearly out of his office, now he represents that he does not collect 
enough to pay his salary of $2,100 allowed by law, his average collec¬ 
tions being only $1,379. The Allen County Clerk had for his services, 
under the old fee system, an average of $10,000 yearly, now his collec¬ 
tions, as reported to this Commission, are but little more than $7,500. 
And thus for further illustration of collections: 

Under Fee System. Under Salary. 


Washington. $2,800 $2,227 

Scott. 1,200 735 

Orange. 2,300 1,650 

Jackson. 3,300 3,000 

Floyd . 4,000 2,857 

Morgan . 2,700 2,555 

Carroll. 4,000 1,717 

Wells. 4,000 4,435 











48 


Under Fee System. Under Salary. 

Dearborn. $4,000 $3,000 

Tippecanoe. 5,000 3,000 

Starke. 1,500 1,200 

Kipley. 3,500 7,929 

Owen. 3,200 1,500 

Grant. 5,000 5,448 

Miami. 4,000 3,846 

Martin. :... 1,000 1,495 

Lawrence. 2,400 2,487 

Jasper . 1,800 1,857 

Henry . 4,500 3,273 

Fayette. 2,500 1,862 

Gibson. 3,200 2,633 

Dubois. 1,380 860 

Decatur. 3,240 3,240 

Clinton. 6,000 3,273 

Sullivan. 4,500 2,543 


It was the abuse of the fee system through constructive fees that 
stimulated and strengthened demands for a salary system, but it is a 
question if the latter, as the law is, has not imposed upon the State an 
evil equally as pernicious through the rule of contingency applicable 
to fees and salaries. 

Under the old law there vras ever with the officer the selfish incen¬ 
tive to make the most out of his opportunity to tax and collect; under 
the salary law this selfish incentive was reduced to a minimum in the 
fact that if there were no fees there would be no salary, and with the 
salary once satisfied there would be no further inducement, except that 
of duty and fealty to oath of office to urge payment of cost of those 
against whom costs had been adjudged. 


VARIED BOOKKEEPING. 

The Commission has no means of stating, with any degree of ac¬ 
curacy, the amount of unpaid costs in the various county offices of the 
State. Even to exact that information from the Clerks, Kecorders 
and Sheriffs would result in nothing more than approximate figures, 
and that to an extent unreliable, as the system of bookkeeping is so 
varied that it would require months of accounting to attain anything 
that would purport to be a result. No Clerk, Recorder or Sheriff in 
the State can give this information by ready reference to his books. 
The rule in taxing fees is to note each process of litigation, and to 





















49 


strike no balance until the case is decided, and often not until i)ay- 
nient is offered. Thus, the taxation in a case filed March 1, 1897, the 
date when reports of taxation to this Connnission began, may con¬ 
tinue years after the time of this Gmieral Assembly, and it may be 
years more until full settlement is made; during the same period col¬ 
lections continue, not only on cases filed within that time', but on 
cases settled long prior to the date above mentioned. From the present 
system of bookkeeping it is impossible to ascertain the aggregate 
taxation and collection of a certain period without encroaching 
upon a taxation and collection of another period, so inextricable are 
the methods of taxation and collection in vogue. For this reason the 
Commission can only give a very crude guess at the amount of uncol¬ 
lected costs. That it amounts to many hundreds of thousands of dol¬ 
lars, if not a million, is certain; equally certain it is that the sum of 
uncollected costs and fees has increased under the present salary sys¬ 
tem because the officers have set opposite the duty to collect their 
selfish interests therein. It is the belief of this Commission that much 
better collection can be secured by a uniform system of bookkeeping, 
supported by a watchful and vigorous enforcement of taxation and col¬ 
lection on the part of officers whose duty it is to have the laws 
enforced. 


ANALYSIS OF TABLES. 


The analysis of the above tables, relating to salaries allowed, sal¬ 
aries paid, fees taxed and fees collected, supply the proof of observa¬ 
tion the Commission has recounted in regard to taxation and collec¬ 
tion. The salaries allowed Clerks, by the law of 1895, are classified 
into sixteen groups. The figures given are the average for a year and 
show salary allowed, taxation, collection and the percentage of taxa¬ 
tion collected. 

CLERK. GROUP 1. 


Salary. Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Ohio. $1,000 $850 $581 68.3 

Scott. 1,000 1,000 810 81.0 

Union. 1,000 866 773 89.2 

Starke. 1,000 1,687 1,257 74.3 


Totals. $4,000 $4,403 $3,421 77.7 


Of this group Starke County alone taxed and collected far more 
than the salary allowed the (1erk, but the percentage of collection was 


4—F. AND S. Com. 












50 


less than that of Scott and Union, although the taxed fees of the 
latter was $134 less than the salary, and collection $227 less, while the 
taxation of Scott equaled the salary, and the collection was $100 less. 
The percentage of collection in Starke County was 3.4 less than the 
total of the average percentage of collection in all four counties. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 1. 


In the classification of Sheriffs’ salaries but three counties with the 
Clerks’ Group No. 1 were retained at $1,000, the average taxation and 
collection with percentage being as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Starke. $1,100 $1,669 $1,669 100.0 

Scott. 1,000 765 536 91.3 

Union. 1,000 672 615 78.8 

Ohio. 1,000 530 418 89.7 


Totals. $4,100 13,636 $3,238 85.7 


The Starke County Sheriff has $100 additional under the law of 
1895; his average taxation and collection being $1,669 and the per¬ 
centage of collection 100 per cent. This county, and Union County, 
exceed the average, one by 21 per cent., and the other by about 9 
per cent., the collections of the Scott County Sheriff being 30 per 
cent, less than his taxation, and of Ohio County 22 per cent. less. 


RECORDER. GROUP 1. 

In the classification of llecorders’ salaries of $700, Scott, Starke 
and Union are grouped with the following average taxation, collec¬ 
tion and percentage of collection. 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Scott. $700 $576 $524 90.9 

Starke. 700 1,294 1,294 100.0 

Union. 700 487 465 95.4 


Totals. $2,100 $2,357 $2,283 96.8 


It will be seen that in the matter of Recorders’ salaries the smallest 
county in the State in population, taxable valuation and services ren¬ 
dered has been removed from its classification along with Clerk and 
Sheriff and its Recorder given $100 more than the Recorder of Starke, 
whose Clerk and Sheriff and Recorder taxed and collected more than 
any other officers of the group. 




















51 


The Ohio County Keporder and Brown County Eecorder have each 
$800 salary, the average taxation and collection being as follows: 

Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 


Brown. $800 $530 $530 100.0 

Ohio. 800 289 289 100.0 

Totals.;.$1,600 $819 . $819 


It will be noted that the aggregate taxation and collection of these 
two counties is only 63.3 per cent, of that of Starke alone, whose Re¬ 
corder has $100 less salary. 

Again it will be observed that the aggregate taxation and collection 
of Brown and Ohio, with $200 more .salary, in the aggregate is only 
31.7 per cent, of the aggregate taxation and collection of the three 
counties first named. 

In comparing the specific percentages with that of the total we 
find that three of the five counties considered exceed the total per¬ 
centage by about four per cent.; that of Scott being 10 per cent- less 
and that of Union five per cent. less. 


CLERK. GROUP 2. 


For the convenience of comparison and calculation the following 
three counties, the Clerks of which have an average salary of $1,300, 
are considered together. The comparison of taxation, collection and 
percentage of collection is as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection, of Collections. 

Brown. $1,200 $1,100 $927 84.3 

Newton. 1,300 1,616 1,299 80.0 

Pulaski. 1,400 2,667 1,775 56.5 


Totals. $3,900 $5,383 $4,001 74.3 


These three counties, in the matter of Clerks’ salaries, have in the 
aggregate of salary allowed $100 less than the aggregate of Group Xo. 
1, but the aggregate taxation is $980 more and collection $579, with 
a total percentage of 3.1 per cent. less. The specific percentages of 
two counties of Group Xo. 2 exceed the total average percentage, and 
one, that of Pulaski, is less. 
















52 


SHERIFP". GROUP 2. 
j_ 

Ill classifying the salaries of Sheriffs we add the salary of the 
Sheriff of Jasper County, giving the following comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection, of Collections. 

Brown. $1,200 $850 $717 84.3 

Newton. 1,300 1,433 1,073 74.6 

Jasper. 1,400 1,515 835 ' 55.1 

Pulaski. 1,400 1,801 1,348 74.8 


Totals. $5,300 $5,599 $3,973 70.9 


While the percentage of collection in this group was 11.8 per cent, 
less than that of the Sheriffs of the first group, the average taxation 
of this group exceeds by $1,963, and the collection is in excess of that 
of the first group by $735. The collections of the Sheriff of Jasper 
County alone were below the total percentage, and that by 15.8 per 
cent., while the collections of the Sheriff of Brown County exceeded 
the total percentage by 13.4 per cent., and those of Xewton and Pu¬ 
laski by 3.9 per cent. each. 


RPICORDER. GROUP 2. 

Coming to the Pecorders’ salaries of Group No. 2, we find that the 
Eecorder of Newton County alone receives $900 salary. The salary 
of the Brown County Eecorder, with his collections, taxation and per¬ 
centage, has been dealt with in connection with the first group,, while 
the Eecorders of Jasper and Pulaski figure in the $1,100 group, but 
continuing the comparison of the three counties we have, as follows: 


Salary ' Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections^.^ 

Newton. $900 $',542 $1,542 100.0 

Jasper. 1,100 2,223 2,194 98.6 

Pulaski. 1,100 1,741 1,741 100.0 


Totals. $3,100 $5,506 $5,477 99.4 


The aggregate salary of the Eecorders of these three counties is $700 
less than the aggregate salary of the Eecorders of the five counties 
previously considered, while the taxation is $2,350 more and collection 
$2,375 more. Compared with the total percentage of collections, the 
specific percentages of Newton and Pulaski were greater, that of Jas¬ 
per alone being a fraction less. 




















53 


In connection with these counties, two of the group, in which the 
Kecorclers received $1,000 can be considered. 

They are as follows: 


Sdlavy • PcTCCTitdQC 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Switzerland ........ $1,000 $583 $583 100.0 

Vermillion. 1,000 1,121 1,083 06.6 


Totals. $2,000 $1,704 $1,666 97.7 


Here, too, we find one county exceeding the average percentage, and 
another a fraction below. 


CLERK. GROUP 3. 


The salaries of the Clerks of the counties in this group, consisting 
of Jackson, Benton, Switzerland and Warren, were placed at $1,500 
each b}' the law of 1895, but the salaries of the Sheriff and Recorder 
of Jasper County and the Recorder of Switzerland County have been 
•considered in connection with Group No. 2. 

The comparison of the Clerks' salaries, with taxation, collection and 
percentage shows the following: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections, 

Benton. $1,500 $1,503 $1,443 96.0 

Jasper . 1,500 2,192 1,857 84.7 

Switzerland. 1,500 715 1,022 

Warren. 1,500 1,793 1,262 70.0 


Totals. $6,000 $6,203 $5,584 90.0 


It will be observed that the taxation of Switzerland County is $307 
less than that of collection. This can be explained by the falling off 
of the taxation during the two years covered by this report, and by 
the excess of collections occurring under taxation previous to that 
jieriod. It can be assumed, from this that the average taxation of 
Switzerland normally is about what the collections are, or from $300 
to $500 less than the salary allowed by law. Of the counties con¬ 
sidered the percentage of one alone exceeds that of the total pefcent- 
age by about six per cent., while that of Jasper is 5.3 per cent, less, 
and that of Warren 20 per cent. less. 

While the total salaries of these four counties exceed, by $2,100, 
the total salaries of the Clerks in the three counties of Group No. 2, 
the excess of taxation is but $820 and of collection $1,583. 


















54 


SHERIFF. GROUP 3. 

The elements that entered into the salary of the Sheriff of Jasper 
County, which is $1,400, have been considered above in connection 
with the Sheriffs of Group No. 2, leaving in Group No. 3 the Sheriffs 
of Benton, Switzerland and Warren to be considered. 

The comparison is as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. • Taxation. Collection. of Collections 

Benton ....I . $1,500 $1,535 $1,039 67.6 

Switzerland. 1,300 895 850 94.9 

Warren. 1,500 1,700 1,200 70.5 


Totals. $4,300 $4,130 $3,089 74.7 


The total salary allowed in these three counties is within $800 of 
that allowed the Sheriff's of the four counties considered in Group No. 
2. The taxation is $1,469 less and collection $864 less with a percent¬ 
age of 3.8 per cent, greater. 

The Sheriffs of two of the counties in this group, Benton and War¬ 
ren, have a percentage of collection less than the average by T.6 per 
cent, and 4.2 per cent., respectively; the percentage of collection in 
Switzerland County 94.9 per cent., increasing the average to 74.7 
per cent. 


RECORDER. GROUP 3. 


The Eecorders of Jasper and Switzerland, the salary of the fonner 
being $1,100 and the latter $1,000, have been compared with the Re¬ 
corders’ salaries in the second group, leaving Benton and Warren to 
be taken up in Group No. 3, the Recorder of Benton County having 
$1,100 and the Recorder of Warren County $1,200, with the following 
comparison of taxation, collection and percentage of collection. 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection* 

Benton. $1,100 $1,377 $1,402 

Warren. 1,200 1,371 1,318 96.1 


Totals. $2,300 $2,748 $2,720 


It appears that the collections of Benton County, as reported to this 
Commission for the two years covered by this report, were slightly 
greater than the taxation. The Recorder did not explain this dis¬ 
crepancy, but it is assumed that he or his predecessor gave credit, and 
that the excess of collection over taxation represents payments on in¬ 
struments recorded previous to the date of this report. 

















The total collection is a*bout 100 per cent, of the total taxation for 
the two counties. 


CLERK. GROUP 4. 

The Clerks^ salaries in this group are $1,600 each under the law of 
1895, their comparison with taxation, collection and percentage of 
collection being as follows: 


Scdar}^ Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Co'lection. of Collection. 

Blackford . 11,600 |4,235 $3,374 79.6 

Crawford. 1,600 1,350 1,186 87.7 

■ Martin. 1,600 1,611 1,495 92.7 

Vermillion . 1,600 2,255 1,324 54.S 


Totals. $6,400 $9,451 $7,379 78.0 


The total of the salaries of the Clerks in this group exceeds that of 
the total of the salaries in group 3 by. $400, while the taxation is 
$3,248 greater and collection $1,795 greater, with a total percentage 
of 12 per cent. less. The large excess of taxation in Group 4, as com¬ 
pared with the taxation of Group 3, is due to Blackford County, the 
taxation of which is almost double that of the next largest, Ver¬ 
million, while its collections are nearly three times as great as those 
of the next largest, Martin; but the percentage of collection in Black¬ 
ford County was only 79.6 per cent., while that of Martin was 92.7 
per cent. Crawford County, the only one of the group whose Clerk 
failed, both under taxation and collection, to cover his salary, had a 
percentage of 87.7 per cent., while the Clerk of Vermillion, taxing 
$655 more than his salary, collected $276 less, or 54.3 per cent. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 4. 

In classifying the Sheriffs’ salaries, $1,600 each is allowed the Sher¬ 
iffs of Blackford, Crawford, Martin and Vermillion, with the Sheriff 
of Fayette added, giving the following result in comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Blackford . $1,600 $3,062 $2,371 77.4 

Crawford. 1,600 1,500 1,200 80.0 

Fayette. 1,600 1,244 952 76.5 

Martin. 1,600 2,230 1,487 66.0 

Vermillion . 1,600 2,522 1,681 66.6 


Totals. $8,000 $10,557 $7,691 72.8 


While the total salary of he Sheriffs of Group 4 exceeds the total 
salary of Group 3 by $3,500, the taxation is $6,427 greater and col- 





















56 


lection $4,602 greater, with a percentage of 72.8 per cent., or 1.9 per 
cent. less. 

Blackford County, with a taxation and collection greater than that 
of any other county of the group, shows only 77.4 per cent, of collec¬ 
tion to the 80 per cent, of (Crawford, which is the lowest in collection 
and taxation. 

Vermillion County, with the next highest taxation and collection 
of the grou]), has hut 66.6 per cent, collection, the same as that of 
Martin, next in rank to Vermillion in taxation and collection; but 
hMyette County, the lowest in taxation and collection, shows a percent¬ 
age of 76.5 per cent. 


IiEC()KI)P:il. GROUP 4. 

The salaries of the Becorders of, tliree of these counties are as fol¬ 
lows, compared with taxation, collection and percentages of collection: 


Salary Percentage 

County. AUoived. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Crawford. $1,100 $851 $792 95.6 

Martin... 1,100 966 966 100.0 

Fayette. 1,100 712 672 9-1.3 


Totals. $3,3')0 $2,529 $2,430 97.7 


The Vermillion County liecorder was considered in connection with 
‘‘Group No. 2. The total of the three counties named in $3,300, or 
$1,000 more than the total salary of Benton and Warren considered 
above; the taxation being $219 less, and collection $290 less, the per¬ 
centage of the four counties under consideration being a little more 
than 1 per cent, greater than that of the total percentage of Benton 
and Warren. 


. CI.ERK. GROUP 5. 

The Clerks of this group are allowed $1,700 under the law, the com¬ 
parison being as follows: 


Salary. Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Fayette. $1,700 $2,430 $1,862 76.1 

Jennings. 1,700 1,600 1,348 84.2 

Orange. 1,700 2,500 1,650 66.0 


Totals. $5,100 $6,530 $4,860 74.1 


It is again observed that the county (Jennings) having the smallest 
taxation and collection has the largest percentage of collection, 84.2 
per cent., or 10.1 per cent, greater than the total percentage; while 



















57 


Orange County has a larger taxation^ hut less collection than Fayette, 
which has the largest collection. 

The total salary of the three Clerks is $1,300 less than the total 
salary of the four Clerks of the counties of the preceding group, while 
the taxation is $2,901 less, and collection $2,519 less; the percentage 
of collection being 3.9 per cent. less. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 5. 

The Sheriffs of only two of these counties are to he considered in 
connection with this group, those of Jennings and Orange, but two 
more, those of Lagrange and Steuben, each receive a like amount of 
salary, the comparison being as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allow, d. Taxation. Collection, of Collections. 

•Jennings. |1,700 $1,500 $1,200 80.0 

Lagrange. 1,700 950 878 92.4 

Orange. 1,700 2,250 868 38.5 

Steuben. 1,700 1,974 1,668 84.4 


Totals. $6,800 $6,674 $4,614 69.1 


The salaries of these four Sheriffs amount, in the aggregate, to only 
$1,200 less than the aggregate of the five preceding Sheriffs considered 
in Group No. 4, but the taxation is $3,883 less, and collection $3,077, 
with only 3.7 percentage. Orange County having the greater taxation 
and least collection shows 38.5 per cent., as compared with Lagrange 
County, which has the least taxation and next to the smallest collec¬ 
tion and shows a percentage of 92.4 per cent. 

The Sheriff of Steuben has next to the largest taxation, but the 
largest sum of collection, with 84.4 per cent., compared with the 80. 
per cent, of Jennings County, whose Sheriff has the third largest 
taxation and second largest collection, the percentage of the latter 
being 80 per cent. 


RECORDER. GROUP 5. 

The same grouping applies to Recorders who have $1,100 salary; 
the comparison being as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Jennings. $1,100 $998 $917 91.8 

Ligrange. 1,100 1,302 1,279 98.2 

Orange. 1,100 772 772 100.0 

Steuben. 1,100 681 681 100.0 


Totals. $4,400 $3,753 $3,649 97.2 



















58 


Comparing the total salaries of this group with that considered in 
the preceding group, we find the total salar}^ to he $1,100 greater, and 
the taxation $1,224 greater, and collection $1,219 greater, with only 
0.5 per cent, less percentage. Two of the counties, Steuben and 
Orange, with the smallest taxation, show 100 per cent, collection, 
while Lagrange and Jennings, with a larger taxation and collection, 
show, the former 5.4 per cent, less and Lagrange 1 per nent. greater 
than the total percentage. 


CLERK. GROUP 6. 


The Clerks of the counties in this group receive a salary of $1,800 
each ,and show the following comparison: 


Salary Percentaye ^ 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Lagrange. $1,800 $2,500 $1,680 67.2 • 

Owen. 1,800 1,750 1,500 85.7 

Steuben. 1,800 2,356 2,212 93.8 


Totals . $5,400 $6,606 $5,392 81.6 


The total salary allowed these three Clerks, compared with the total 
in the preceding gToup, show a difference of $300, the total of the pre¬ 
ceding group being that much less, while there is a difference of only 
$56 in taxation and $532 in collection, the total of Group 6 being that 
much greater, with 7.5 per cent, greater percentage. As in analysis 
above, relative to other groups, we find that the county having the 
largest taxation has the least collection, it being Lagrange in this 
instance, the percentage being only 67.2 per cent, compared with the 
93.8 per cent, of Steuben County, which is second in matter of taxa¬ 
tion and first in matter of collection; while Owen, with a mnch lower 
taxation and collection than either collected about 85.7 per cent. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 6. 


The salaries of the Sheriffs of this group are $1,800, the compari¬ 
son being as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Owen. $1,800 $1,352 $1,226 90.6 

White. 1,800 3,000 1,725 57.5 


Totals. $3,600 $4,352 $2,951 74.0 

















59 


The total salary of these two Sheriffs is $3,200 less than the total 
of the Sheriffs’ salaries in the four counties considered in the group 
above. The taxation is $2,322 less with $1,665 less collection, and 
4.9 per cent, greater percentage. The Sheriff of White County, with 
more than double the taxation of the-Sheriff of Owen County, col¬ 
lected only 57.5 per cent., while the Sheriff of Owen collected 90.6 per 
cent, of his taxation. 


RECORDER. GROUP 6. 


Of this group, arranged on a basis of Clerks’ salaries, the Owen 
County Recorder was the only one remaining of the $1,100 group 
applicable to that office to be considered, the taxation, collection and 
percentages of the others being noted in their proper classification, ar¬ 
ranged according to the Clerk’s salary. 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Owen. $1,100 $901 $560 62.1 


The percentage is the least gained by any recorder receiving $1.100, 
the other ten of the same class of salary having percentages of collec¬ 
tions running from 91.8 to 100 per cent. 


CLERK. GROUP 7. 

The Clerks of the counties of this group receiving $1,900, present 
the following comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Franklin. $1,900 $1,975 $2,002 

Fulton. 1,900 2,310 2,010 87.0 

White. 1,900 2,643 2,286 86.3 


Totals. $5,700 $6,928 $6,298 90.0 


The total salar}^ allowed to Clerks in this group exceeds the total 
salary in the preceding group by $300, with a taxation on $322 in ex¬ 
cess and collection $906 more, the excess of percentage of collection 
being 8.4 per cent. 

The taxation and collection of Franklin County show a slight dif¬ 
ference in favor of the latter and indicating a very close collection of 
fees, with resources about sufficient to meet the salary. 











60 


SHERIFF. GROUP 7. 

We also find the Sherifts of these counties, excepting White County, 
in the $1,900 class along with the Sheriffs of Dubois, ]\Iorgan, Perry, 


Pike and Whitley. 

The folloAving 

comparison 

is presented: 

County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collection. 

Dubois. 

$1,900 

$2,400 

$1,400 

58.3 

Franklin. 

1,900 

1,835 

1,604 

87.4 

Fulton. 

1,900 

2,809 

1,873 

66.6 

Morgan. 

1,900 

2,195 

1,613 

73.2 

Perry.. 

1,900 

741 

533 

71.9 

Pike. 

1,900 

1,204 

925 

76.3 

Whitley. 

1,900 

2,090 

1,352 

64.6 

Totals. 

$13,300 

$13,274 

$9,300 

70.6 


The total salary allowed the Sheriffs in this group is $9,700 greater 
than that in the preceding group, while the taxation is $8,923 more, 
and collection $6,349 more, with a percentage of collection 3.4 less. 

Dubois being second as to taxation is the lowest in percentage of 
collection and fourth in the sum of collection, the percentage of col¬ 
lection being 13.6 per cent, less than that of Perry whose collection 
and taxation are at the bottom of the list, and 8.3 per cent, less than 
that of Fulton, whose taxation and collection are at the head of the 
list. 


RECORDER. GROUP 7. 


The Recorder of White County, of this group, classified according 
to Clerk’s salary, is out of the $1,200 class of Recorders, to which the 
Recorders of Franklin and Fulton belong, with those of Harrison, 
Morgan, Perry, Pike and Warren. The Recorder of Warren County 
has been noted aboA^e, Avhile that of White County AAdll be considered 
with the Recorders recehdng $t,300. 

The following comparison shows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collection, 

Franklin. 

$1,200 

$740 

$714 

96.4 

Fulton. 

1,200 

1,606 

1,606 

100.0 

Harrison. 

1,200 

1,350 

1,328 

98.1 ' 

Morgan. 

. 1,200 

1,379 

1,352 

98.4 

Perry. 

1,200 

1,077 

1,049 

97.4 

Pike. 

. . 1,200 

1,154 

1,154 

100.0 

Totals. 

$7,200 

$7,306 

$7,203 

97.1 























61 


CLERK. GROUP 8. 

The Clerks of this group receive $2,000 salary which compares as 
follows as to the taxation, collection and percentage of collection: 


Salary Percentage 

County. * Allowed, Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Perry. ^2,000 $1,985 $1,529 77.5 

Pike. 2,000 2,125 1,705 80.0 

Whitley. 2,000 2,620 1,940 74.0 


Totals. $6,000 $6,730 $5,174 76.9 


Compared with these elements of salary and resources in the pre¬ 
ceding group we have for the three counties, only $300 excess, and 
with less taxation hy $198 and less collection by $1,124, the percent¬ 
age of collection being 13.1 per cent. less. 

The PeiT}^ County Clerk taxed only $10 more than the Clerk of 
Franklin County, and collected $473 less. The taxation of the Clerk 
of Pike County was $185 less with collections $305 less than that of 
Fulton. Whitley County taxed $23 less and collected $346 less than 
the Clerk of White County. 

The largest taxation in Group 'No. S shows the least percentage in 
collection. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 8. 


The salaries of Sheriffs of these three counties above have been 
treated in Group 7. The Sheriffs receiving $2,000 compared with 
their taxation, collection and percentages of collection are as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Alloioed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of CoHection, 

Rush. 

$2,000 

$1,785 

$1,277 

7'.5 

Washington. 

2,000 

1,780 

1,499 

84.2 

Tipton. 

2,000 

2,469 

1,705 

69.6 

Adams. 

2,000 

2,850 

2,093 

73.4 

Carroll. 

2,000 

2,006 

1,710 

85.2 

Decatur. 

2,000 

1,779 

1,279 

71.8 

Fountain. 

2,000 

2,500 

1,900 

76.0 

Hancock. 

2,000 

1,653 

1,102 

66.6 

Harrison. 

2,000 

1,575 

1,050 

66.6 

Johnson. 

2,000 

1,197 

798 

66.6 

Porter. 

2,000 

1,541 

842 

54.6 

Monroe. 

2,000 

1,673 

1,249 

74.6 

Parke. 

2,000 

2,250 

1,752 

77.8 

Ripley. 

2,000 

2,400 

1,700 

70.8 

Totals. 

$28,000 

$2/ ,458 

$20,056 

70.0 

























62 


The aggregate salaries of these fourteen Sheriffs exceed the aggre¬ 
gate salaries in the preceding group by $14,700, while the taxation is 
$14,184 in excess and collection $10,756 more, with 2.6 per cent, 
less collection. 

The Porter County Sheriff, whose salary was increased to $2,600, 
shows the least percentage of collection, while that of Carroll, who^se 
taxation is $500 greater, has the highest percentage of collection. The 
Sheriff of Adams County, with the largest taxation and collection, has 
only a percentage of 73.4 per cent. These specific percentages, above 
the total, occur in only six counties of the fourteen. 


RECORDER. GROUP 8. 


The Recorder of one county (Whitley) of three, in Group 8, ar¬ 
ranged according to the Clerk’s salary, appears under the $1,300 class 
of Recorders, the others in this class being the Recorders of Adams, 
Dubois, Parke and White. They show the following comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections, 

Adams. $1,300 $1,608 $1,608 100.0 

Dubois. 1,300 1,228 1,228 100.0 

Parke. 1,300 1,431 1,431 100.0 

White. 1,300 2,448 2,448 100.0 

Whitley. 1,300 1,309 1,303 99.5 


Totals. $6,500 $8,024 $8,018 99.9 


The aggregate Recorders’ salary of these five counties exceeds, the 
aggregate salary of the six preceding by $700, while their aggregate 
taxation is $718 more and collection $818 more, with a percentage of 
2.8 per cent, greater. 

The largest taxation and collection in the group of Recorders pre¬ 
ceding is $1,606, while the largest in the group of five, now considered, 
is White County, $2,448. The least taxation and collection in this ' 
comparison occurs in Franklin County, while the least in the $1,300 
class occurs in Dubois County, being $1,228. 













CLERKS’ GROUP 9, PAGE 63. 


Erratum Read: Morgan county with less taxation by 
little more than $1,000 and about equal collection, had 28.9 
per cent, greater collection than Adams county. 










L ^ 









63 


CLERK. GROUP 9. 


The Clerks receiving $2,100 salary can be compared as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Adams. 

$2,100 

$3,729 

$2,487 

66.7 

Carroll. 

2,100 

1,801 

1,717 

95.3 

Dubois ... 

2,100 

1,041 

813 

78.1 

Hancock . 

2,100 

3,242 

2,425 

74.4 

Harrison. 

2,100 

2,068 

1,379 

66.2 

Morgan. 

2,100 

2,672 

2,555 

95.6 

Parke. 

2,100 

2,316 

2,118 

91.4 

Tipton. 

2,100 

3,500 

2,489 

71.1 

Totals. 

$16,800 

$20,369 

$15,983 

78.4 


The aggregate Clerks^ salary of these • eight counties is $10,800 
greater than that of the preceding group, with $13,639 excess in taxa¬ 
tion and $10,809 excess of collection, and 1.5 greater percentage of 
collection. Morgan County, with less taxation by a little mone than 
$1,000 and $100 greater collection, has 28.9 per cent, greater collec¬ 
tion. The percentage of collection of only three counties exceeds the 
total, 78.4 per cent. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 9. 


Xone of these counties is represented among the Sheriffs receiving 
$2,100; that class being 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Hendricks. 

$2,100 

$3,096 

$2,064 

66.6 

Lawrence.. 

2,100 

1,152 

1,222 


Posey. 

2,100 

1,360 

1,220 

89.7 

Putnam. 

2,100 

1,789 

1,223 

68.3 

Spencer. 

2,100 

1,865 

1,014 

54.3 

Sullivan. 

2,100 

2,679 

2,059 

76.8 

Warrick. 

2,100 

2,000 

1,245 

62.2 

Wells.. 

2,100 

1,974 , 

1,537 

77.8 

Totals. 

$16,800 

$15,915 

$11,584 

61.9 


The aggregate salary of the Sheriffs of these eight counties is $11,- 
200 less, with $11,543 less taxation and $8,472 less collection, the per¬ 
centage being 8.1 per cent, less than the aggregate percentage of col¬ 
lection in the preceding group. 






















64 


The smallest percentage of collection occurs in Spencer County and 
the highest in Posey, the taxation of which is $565 less and collection 
$206 more, the percentage of collections of three Sheriffs only of the 
group exceed the total percentage of collection. 


RECORDER. (iROUP 9. 


Following next in order, as to salaries, are the Eecorders receiving 
$1,400, the comparison of which is as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Bartholomew. 

$1,400 

$1,567 

$1,332 

85.0 

Blackford. 

1,400 

1,876 

1,876 

100.0 

Carroll. 

1,400 

1,674 

1,674 

100.0 

Dearborn. 

1,400 

1,236 

1,226 

99.1 

Decatur. 

1,400 

1,488 

1,418 

95.2 

Hancock. 

1,400 

1,732 

1,732 

100.0 

Hendricks. 

1,400 

1,927 

1,927 

100.0 

Johnson. 

1,400 

1,577 

1,510 

95.7 

Marshall. 

1,400 

2,227 

2,221 

99.7 

Miami. 

1,400 

2,350 

2,300 

97.8 

Monroe. 

1,400 

1,568 

1,568 

100 0 

Noble. 

1,400 

1,742 

1,742 

100.0 

Posey. 

1,400 

1,741 

1,161 

66.6 

Putnam. 

1,400 

1,400 

1,509 


Ripley . 

1,400 

1,268 

1,229 

96 9 

Rush. 

1,400 

1,671 

1,679 


Shelby . 

1,400 

1,449 

1,421 

98.6 

Spencer. 

1,400 

1,480 

1,465 

98.9 

Sullivan. 

1,400 

1,795 

1,795 

100.0 

Warrick. 

1,400 

1,655 

1,655 

100,0 

Wa'ihington. 

1,400 

1,109 

1,062 

95.7 

Totals. 

$29,400 

$34,532 

$33,502 

97.1 


The total salaries of these twenty-one Eecorders exceed the total in 
the five counties preceding by $23,900, while the taxation exceeds by 
$26,508 and collection by $25,484, the percentage of collection being 
2.8 per cent. less. The specific percentages of thirteen of the counties 
are above the total average percentage. 


























65 


CLERK. GROUP 10. 


The Clerks receiving $2,200 salary are in comparison as follows: 



Salary 



Percentage 

County. 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

of Collections. 

Fountain. 

$2,200 

• $2,895 

$1,930 

66.6 

Hendricks. 

2,200 

2,901 

1,934 

66.6 

Johnson. 

2,200 

3,674 

2,224 

60.5 

Lawrence. 

2,200 

3,158 

2,487 

78.7 

Posey. 

2,200 

3,000 

2,653 

88.4 

Putnam. 

2,200 

2,601 

1,734 

66.3 

Ripley. 

2,200 

3,500 

1,929 

55.1 

Spencer. 

2,200 

2,658 

1,981 

74.5 

Sullivan. 

2,200 

3,230 

2,543 

78.7 

Warrick .. 

2,200 

2,000 

1,942 

97.1 

Washington. 

2,200 

1,516 

2,227 


Wells. 

2,200 

8,538 

4,088 

50.0 

Totals. 

$26,400 

$39,671 

$27,672 

70.6 

The aggregate salary of the Clerks of 

these twelve 

counties ex- 

ceeds the aggregate salary of those in the group preceding by $9,600, 

while the total taxation is $19,302 more, and the total collection $11,- 

689 more, hut the 

total average percentage of collection is 7.8 per cent. 

less. It will be observ^ed that the county having the largest taxation 

and collection has the smallest percentage of collection, while the 

county having the fourth smallest collection has the largest percentage. 


SHERIFF. 

GROUP 

10. 


Referring to the Sheriffs receiving $2,200 salary we 

find none of 

them in the counties where a like sum is paid the Clerks, 

thus: 


Salary 



Percentage 

County. 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

of Collection 

Bartholomew. 

$2,200 

$2,220 

$1,480 

66.6 

Dearborn. 

2,200 

3,570 

2,380 

66.6 

Greene. 

2,200 

3,062 

1,621 

52.9 

Henry. 

2,200 

2,100 

1,400 

66.6 

Marshall. 

2,200 

4,017 

2,678 

66.6 

Noble.. 

2,200 

1,720 

1,147 

66.6 

Totals. 

$13,200 

$16,689 

$10,706 

64.1 


Comparing the aggregate of these salaries with the aggregate of 
the SheriftV salaries in the preceding group, we find it to be $3,600 
less, with a taxation of $774 more, and collection $878 less, with a per¬ 
centage of collection 2.2 per cent, greater. The specific percentages 

5—F. AND S. Com. 

























66 


run from 52.9 per cent, in Greene County to 66.6 per cent, in the other 
counties; while the specific percentages in the preceding group are 
from 54.3 per cent, in Spencer County to 89.7 per cent, in Posey. 


RECORDER. GROUP 10. 


The Recorders receiving $1,500 salary are, compared with their 
taxation, collection and percentages as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collection. 

Dekalb. 

$1,500 

$2,425 

$2,425 

100.0 

Fountain. 

1,500 

1,850 

1,832 

99.2 

Greene. 

1,500 

2,265 

2,265 

100.0 

Jackson. 

1,500 

1,858 

1,742 

93.7 

Jefferson. 

1,500 

1,169 

1,169 

100.0 

Lawrence. 

1,500 

1,471 

1,471 

100.0 

Porter. 

1,500 

1,552 

1,543 

99.3 

Randolph. 

1,500 

2,833 

2,833 

100.0 

Tipton . 

1,500 

1,862 

1,862 

100.0 

Wells. 

1,500 

1,756 

1,756 

100.0 

Totals.. 

$15,000 

$19,041 

$18,898 

99.2 


While the total salary in this group of Recorders, compared with 
the total in the preceding group, is $14,400 less, the total taxation 
is $15,491 less, with a less collection of $14,604, but 2.1 per cent, 
greater percentage. 


CLERK. GROUP 11. 

In the $2,300 class of Clerks there are but four counties: Decatur, 
Monroe, Porter and Rush, showing the following comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Decatur. $2,300 $5,164 $3,240 62.7 

Monroe. 2,300 3,622 2,415 66.6 

Porter. 2,300 3,930 2,730 89.4 

Rush. 2,300 5,341 3,561 66.6 


Totals. $9,200 $18,057 ■ $11,946 71.2 


The aggregate salary of these four counties is $17,200 less than the 
aggregate salary of the twelve in the preceding group, the taxation 
being $21,114 less, and collection $15,726 less, with 1.2 per cent, 
greater percentage. 


























67 


In this connection it should be noted that while the Porter County 
Clerk was placed at $2,300, he was allowed $600 additional on account 
of the creation of the Superior Court of that county. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 11. 


In the $2,300 class of Sheriffs we find none of the four counties 
named, the class being as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collection. 

Dekalb. 

$2,300 

$2,450 

$1,959 

79.9 

Jackson . 

2,300 

3,246 

2,458 

75.7 

Jefferson. 

2,300 

1,366 

1,192 

87.3 

Miami. 

2,300 

1,673 

1,249 

74.6 

Shelby. 

2,300 

2,900 ■ 

1,497 

51.2 

Totals. 

$11,500 

$11,635 

$8,355 

71.8 


While the aggregate salary of the Sheriffs in these five counties is 
only $1,700 less than the aggregate salary of the Sheriffs in the six 
preceding counties, noted in Group 10, the taxation is $5,034 less, and 
collection $2,351 less, with 7.7 per cent, greater percentage. 


RECORDER. GROUP 11. 


The Recorders in the $1,600 class are as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allovxd. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Gibson. 

$1,600 

$2,319 

$1,959 

84.4 

Knox. 

1,600 

2.327 

2,237 

96.1 

Kosciusko. 

1,600 

3,100 

3,100 

100.0 

Montgomery. 

1,600 

2,366 

2,366 

100.0 

Totals.. 

$6,400 

$10,112 

$9,662 

95.5 


The aggi’egate of salary allowed compared with that of salary al¬ 
lowed in Group 10, is $8,600 less, while the taxation is $8,929 less, 
and collection $9,236 less, with 3.7 per cent, less percentage. 

The lowest specific percentage is that of Gibson, 84.4 per cent., 
which is 11.7 per cent, less than that of Knox, the next lowest, the 
other two counties having 100 per cent. each. 


















68 


CLERK. GROUP 12. 
The Clerks receiving $2,400 are: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Bartholomew. 

$2,400 

$2,849 

$2,712 

95.1 

Dearborn. 

2,400 

3,918 

3,002 

76.6 

Dekalb. 

2,400 

3,892 

2,595 

66.6 

Gibson. 

2,400 

3,736 

2,633 

70.4 

Greene. 

2,400 

4,300 

2,197 

51.0 

Jackson. 

2,400 

3,460 

3,002 

87.7 

Jefferson. 

2,400 

4,744 

2,700 

98.3 

Miami. 

2,400 

4,698 

3,846 

81.0 

Marshall. 

2,400 

1,728 

2,767 


Noble. 

2,400 

2,637 

2,450 

92.9 

Shelby. 

2,400 

3,750 

2,930 

78.1 

Totals. 

$26,400 

$37,712 

$30,834 

81.7 


The aggregate salary of these Clerks compared with the aggregate 
of the four immediately preceding is $17,200 more, with a taxation of 
$19,655, and a collection of $18,888 more, and a percentage 10.5 
per cent, greater. 

Comparing the aggregates with the twelve counties in the $2,200 
class, we find it to he the same as regards salary, with $1,459 less taxa¬ 
tion for the $2,400 class, and $2,162 more collection, the difference in 
percentage being 11.1 per cent, greater in the $2,400 than in the 
$2,200 class. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 12. 

The Sheriffs receiving $2,400 are those of Boone, Daviess, Gibson 
and Jay, with the following comparison: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Boone. $2,400 $4,785 $3,190 66.2 

Daviess. 2,400 1,781 1,742 97.2 

Gibson. 2,400 3,392 1,689 49.7 

Jay. 2,400 3,750 3,000 80.0 


Totals . $9,600 $13,708 $9,621 70.1 


In the aggregate these four Sheriffs are allowed $1,900 less than the 
five preceding Sheriffs referred to in Group 11, but they have $2,073 
greater taxation and $1,266 more collection, with a percentage of .3 
per cent. less. 
























69 


RECORDER. GROUP 12. 


The next class of Eecorders comprises those receiving $1,700 sal¬ 
ary, the comparisons thereon being as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Boone.. 

$1,700 

$2,037 

$2,037 

100.0 

Clark.. 

1,700 

1,340 

1,340 

100.0 

Olay. 

1,700 

1,714 

1,714 

100.0 

Daviess. 

1,700 

2,585 

2,585 

100.0 

Floyd. 

1,700 

936 

936 

100.0 

Henry. 

1,700 

2,173 

2,173 

100.0 

Totals....... 

$10,200 

$10,785 

$10,785 

100.0 


These six Recorders have an aggregate salary of $3,800 greater than 
the four in the $1,600 class, with a taxation of only $673 more, and a 
collection of $1,123 more, the percentage of collection being 4.5 
greater. It will he noted that the taxation and collection in Clark 
and Floyd counties fall far below the salary allowed, while the collec¬ 
tion and taxation in Clay County are but slightly greater than the 
salai*}" allowed. 


CLERK. GROUP 13. 


No Clerk in the State receives $2,500 salary, therefore, the next 
classification is under a $2,600 salary, the Clerks of the counties re¬ 
ceiving that amount being as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Boone. $2,600 $5,000 $2,979 59.5 

Daviess. 2,600 3,392 2,683 79.0 

Henry. 2,600 3,812 3,273 85.8 

Jay. 2,600 5,809 3,614 62.2 


Totals. $10,400 $18,013 $12,549 69.7 


The total salary allowed these four Clerks is $16,000 less than the 
total sala.r}^ allowed the Clerks of the fourteen counties in the preced¬ 
ing group, while the taxation is $19,699 less, and collection $17,285 
less, with 12 per cent, less percentage. The two counties having the 
highest taxation show the lowest percentage, that of Boone being 
59.5 per cent., and that of Jay 62.2 per cent., the former being 26.3 
per cent, less, and the latter 23.6 per cent, less, than that of Henry, 
the highest, 85.8 per cent. 


















70 


SHERIFF. GROUP 13. 

ISTo Sheriff of the counties under the classification of Clerks’ sal¬ 
aries at $2,600, appears either in the $2,500 or $2,600 class of Sheriffs; 
those receiving $2,500 are: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Floyd. $2,500 $2,585 $1,613 62.3 

Hamilton. 2,500 3,658 2,386 68.9 

Knox. 2,500 5,389 2,530 45.2 

Kosciusko. 2,500 2,682 2,378 88.6 

Randolph. 2,500 3,742 2,495 66.6 


Totals . $12,500 $18,056 $11,402 63.1 


The total of the salaries of the Sheriffs of these five counties exceeds 
the total of the four preceding by only $2,900, while the taxation is 
$4,348 in excess, and the collection $1,781, with 7 less percentage. 
Here, too, it is found that Knox Count^^ with the highest taxation has 
the lowest percentage in collection, while Kosciusko, with the next 
lowest taxation, has the highest percentage of collection, the specific 
percentages ranging from 45.2 to 88.6 per cent. 

RECORDER. GROUP 13. 


The Eecorders receiving $1,800 salary are: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Clinton. 

. $1,800 

$2,613 

$2,613 

100.0 

Huntington .. , 

. . 1,800 

2,398 

2,398 

100.0 

Totals .... 

. 13,600 

$5,011 

$5,011 

100.0 

While the 

total salary of the Eecorders in 

these two 

counties is 

$6,600 less than the total salary of the Eecorders in Group 12, the 
taxation and collection is $5,7'74 less and the percentage of collection 

the same. 

CLERK. 

GROUP 14. 



In the $2,700 class of Clerks there are the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Clark . 

. $2,700 

$7,344 

$4,896 

66.6 

Clinton. 

. 2,700 

3,750 

3,273 

97.2 

Hamilton. 

. 2,700 

3,230 

1,784 

58.3 

Howard. 

. 2,700 

3,357 

2,713 

80.8 

Huntington ... 

. 2,700 

4,461 

3,452 

77.3 

Knox. 

. 2,700 

5,600 

3,357 

59.9 

Kosciusko. 

. 2,700 

3,227 

1,887 

58.4 

Randolph. 

. 2.700 

4,257 

2,838 

66.6 

Totals_ 

. $21,600 

$35,226 

$24,200 

68.6 



























The total salary in these eight counties is $11,200 in excess of the 
salaries allowed the four Clerks in the preceding group, the taxation 
being $17,213 greater for the eight Clerks, and collection $11,651 
greater, with 1.1 per cent, less collection. The specific percentages 
run from 58.3 in Hamilton County to 97.2 in Clinton County; the 
Clerk having the highest taxation being third in the list of low per¬ 
centages. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 14. 


The next class of Sherifi's comprise those who receive $2,600, among 
whom we find the Sheriffs of three of the counties enumerated in the 
Clerks’ group immediately preceding—Clark, Clinton, Howard—as 
follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Clark . 

$2,600 

$4,279 

$2,853 

66.6 

Clay. 

2,600 

2,641 

2,136 

80.8 

Clinton. 

2,600 

1,600 

1,600 

100.0 

Howard. 

2,600 

2,250 

1,894 

84.1 

Huntington. 

2,600 

4,848 

2,700 

55.6 

Wabash. 

2,600 

2,961 

1,974 

66.6 

Totals. 

$15,600 

$18,579 

$13,157 

70.8 


These Sheriffs have a total salary exceeding by $3,100 the total 
salary of the five preceding Sherifis, and but $523 more taxation, but 
$1,755 more collection, with 7.7 per cent, greater percentage. The 
Sheriff, that of Clinton County, having the smallest'taxation and col¬ 
lection has the largest percentage, while the Sheriff, that of Hunting- 
ton, having the largest taxation and the second largest collection has 
the smallest percentage of collection. 


RECORDER. GROUP 14. 


The next class of Eecorders in order comprises those who receive 
$1,900 salaries as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Alloived. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Hamilton. 

$1,900 

$2,913 

$2,913 

100.0 

Cass . 

1,900 

2,231 

2,199 

98.5 

Howard. 

1,900 

2,878 

2,810 

97.6 

Jay. 

1,900 

2,974 

2,974 

100.0 

Wabash. 

1,900 

2,589 

2,589 

100.0 

Totals.. 

$9,500 

$13,585 

$13,485 

99.2 


















72 


The total salary of these Eecorders exceed by $3,900 the total sal¬ 
aries of the Eecorders of Clinton and Huntington who receive the next 
lowest salary, the taxation of t]ie five counties being $6,574 in excess, 
and collection $6,474, with .8 per cent, less percentage. 


CLERK. GROUP 15. 

The Clerks in this group receive $2,800 salary as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collection. 

Clay. $2,800 $3,117 $2,387 76.5 

Floyd. 2,800 3,625 2,857 78.8 

Montgomery. 2,800 7,000 4,800 68.5 

Wabash. 2,800 4,377 3,796 86.7 


Totals. $11,200 $18,119 $13,840 76.3 


While the total salary of these four Clerks is less than the total of 
the preceding group by $10,400, and the taxation is $17,107 less, and 
collection $10,360 less, with 7.7 per cent, greater percentage, but a 
better comparison can be obtained with Boone, Daviess, Henry and 
Jay; the total salaries of the Clerks of which are only $800 lesS; with 
$106 less taxation, and $1,291 less collection, with a percentage 6.6 
per cent. less. 


SHERIFF. GROUP 15. 

In the $2,800 class of Sheriffs there are but two, as follows: 


' Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Cass . $2,800 $3,378 $2,016 59.6 

Montgomery . 2,800 3,894 2,596 66.6 


Totals . $5,600 $7,272 $4,612 63.4 


With a total salary of $10,000 less than the six Sheriffs noted in 
the group above, these two Sheriffs have $11,307 less taxation and 
$8,555 less collection and 7.4 less percentage. 


RECORDER. GROUP 15. 


The Eecorders receiving $2,000 are classed as follows: 


Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Taxation. Collection. of Collections. 

Laporte. $2,000 $1,875 $1,875 100.0 

Tippecanoe. 2,000 3,550 3,550 100.0 

Wayne. 2,000 2,640 2,607 98.7 


Totals. $6,000 $8,065 $8,032 99.5 




















73 


These three counties have $3,500 less salary than the five Kecorders 
of Hamilton, Cass, Howard, Jay and Wabash, and $5,520 less taxation, 
and $5,433 less collection, with only .3 more percentage of collection. 


CLERK. GROUP 16. 


Leaving the $2,800 class of Clerks, the uniform gradation of sal¬ 
aries ceases, the next highest being $3,300, only one Clerk in the State 
receiving that amount; the next in order is $3,500, two receiving that 
amount; the next $3,600, allowed to one; the next $3,700, allowed 
to one; the next $3,800, received by one, the next in order $3,900, 
$4,200, $4,400, $4,800, $5,600, received by one each; the next $6,300, 
allowed to two each. These salaries, with taxation, collection and per¬ 
centage of collection, show the following comparison: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Cass. 

$3,300 

$3,400 

$2,400 

70.5 

Delaware. 

3,500 

5,631 

4,239 

75.2 

Laporte. 

3,500 

3,585 

2,390 

66.6 

Lake. 

3,600 

4,085 

3,173 

77.7 

Wayne .... ... 

3,700 

5,327 

4,435 

83.2 

Elkhart. 

3,800 

6,000 

4,470 

74.5 

Tippecanoe. 

3,900 

5,413 

4,930 

91.0 

Grant. 

4,200 

9,082 

5,449 

59.9 

St. Joseph. 

4,400 

9,000 

4,572 

58.0 

Madison. 

4,800 

11,000 

8,410 

76.4 

Vigo. 

5,600 

12,392 

5,283 

42.6 

Allen. 

6,300 

7,912 

7,102 

89.0 

Vanderburgh ... 

6,300 

9,544 

6,363 

66.5 

Totals. 

... $56,900 

$92,369 

$63,216 

68.4 


The aggregate salary of the Clerks of these thirteen counties is $12,- 
700 less tlmn the aggregate salary of the twenty-seven Clerks immedi¬ 
ately preceding, while the taxation is $16,701 less and the collection 
$18,207 less, with 11 per cent, less percentage of collections. Com¬ 
pared with the $19,500 salary of the Marion County Clerk the total 
salaries of these counties exceed it by $37,400, while the taxation ex¬ 
ceeds the taxation of Marion by $66,369, and the collection by only 
$36,618, the percentage of collection being 5.4 per cent, greater in 
Marion County. 
















74 


SHERIFF. GROUP 16. 


The variations of Sheriffs^ salaries that do not permit of any regu¬ 
lar classification after the $2,8h0 group^ beginning with the $3,000 
class, are as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections. 

Delaware. 

$3,000 

$4,593 

$3,734 

81.2 

Lake. 

3,000 

4,674 

3,677 

78.6 

Tippecanoe. 

3,000 

3,829 

4,014 


Laporte. 

3,200 

1,947 

1,785 

91.7 

Wayne. 

3,200 

4,102 

3,500 

85.3 

Elkhart. 

3,300 

4,675 

3,100 

66.3 

Grant. 

3,800 

6,394 

4,732 

74.0 

St. Joseph. 

3,900 

4,104 

2,736 

66.6 

Madison. 

4,600 

6,750 

4,534 

67.1 

Vigo. 

5,300 

5,219 

3,849 

69.9 

Vanderburgh. 

6,000 

8,956 

6,037 

67.4 

Allen. . . .. 

6,200 

8,957 

5,872 

65.5 

Totals . 

,. $48,500 

$64,200 

$47,370 

73.7 


The aggregate salary of these twelve Sheriffs exceeds the aggregate 
salary of the thirteen immediately preceding, in the groups noted 
above, by $14,800, while the taxation exceeds the taxation of the 
thirteen under comparison by $20,293, and the collection by $18,199, 
while the percentage is 8.3 per cent, greater. 

The aggregate salary of the twelve exceeds the salary of the Marion 
County Sheriff by $35,500, while the taxation is $47,954 in excess, and 
collection $36,134 more, with 8.6 per cent, greater percent-age. 


RECORDER. GROUP 16. 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Percentage 
of Collections, 

Elkhart. 

$2,200 

$3,615 

$3,615 

100.0 

Lake. 

2,400 

2,975 

2,975 

100.0 

Delaware. 

2,700 

4,355 

4,315 

99.8 

St. Joseph. 

2,700 

4,092 

4,080 

99.7 

Vigo. 

2,700 

3,698 

3,691 

99.8 

Grant. 

3,300 

5,518 

5,518 

100.0 

Vanderburgh. 

3,400 

3,044 

3,044 

100.0 

Allen. 

3,500 

5,254 

5,254 

100.0 

Madison. 

3,800 

6,348 

6,348 

100.0 

Totals . 

$26,700 

$38,899 

$38,844 

99.9 






























75 


The aggregate salary of these nine Recorders is hut $2,604 less 
than the aggregate salary of the sixteen preceding, in the groups im¬ 
mediately above, the taxation of the niue Recorders in Group 16 ex¬ 
ceeding the total taxation of the sixteen by only $1,453, with excess 
of collection $1,531. Compared with Marion County the aggregate 
salary of the nine exceed the salary of the Marion County Recorder by 
$14,200, the taxation of the Marion County Recorder being $15,500, 
or $23,399 less than the aggregate of the nine, while the Marion 
County Recorder's collection is but $23,444 less, there being 1.8 per 
cent, difference in collection. 


AUDITOR'S TABLE. 

Under the law, the Auditor's salary is paid directly out of the Treas¬ 
ury to the full amount allowed, irrespective of fees collected, the fees 
in the aggregate of each county being too small to warrant their cover¬ 
ing a fair and equitable salary for the work in the Auditor's office. 

The Auditors of the State returned to the Fee and Salary Commis¬ 
sion the follow^ing collection of two years' fees, two years' salary al¬ 
lowed and paid, number of deputies employed, the yearly payment to 
deputies, and the net salary therein, as follows: 


AUDITOR. 


2 Yec 

County. Fee'. 

Adams. $870 

Allen. 5,348 

Bartholomew. 428 

Benton. 484 

Blackford. 638 

Boone . 927 

Brown. 206 

Carroll. 170 

Cass. 509 

Clark. 657 

Clay. 1,210 

Clinton. 676 

Crawford. 305 

Daviess. 955 

Dearborn. 788 

Decatur. 457 


?. 

2 Years’ 
Salary. 

Deputies. 

85 

$4,600 

2 

86 

13,000 

6 

95 

5,200 

4 

75 

3,200 

2 

00 

3,400 

3 

86 

5,600 

3 

90 

2,600 

1 

05 

4,600 

2 

00 

7,200 

3 

31 

6,000 


45 

6,000 

3 

80 

5,800 

3 

30 

3,400 

2 

00 

5,600 

2 

00 

5,000 

2 

15 

4,800 

1 


Paid 


Deputies. 

Fet Salary. 

$500 

$1,500 

4,576 

1,924 

1,300 

1,300 

900 

700 

800 

900 

1,200 

1,600 

475 

825 

1,220 

1,080 

1,800 

1,800 

1,300 

1,300 

1,500 

1,400 

600 

1,100 

800 

1,500 

1,000 

1,500 

700 

1,700 



















76 


County. 

2 Year's' 
Fees. 

2 Years'^ 
Salary. 

Deputies. 

Paid 

Deputies. 

Net Salary 

Dekalb. 

665 65 

5,000 

3 

1,280 

1,220 

Delaware. 

,. 1,466 40 

7,400 

4 

1,800 

1,900 

Dubois. 

674 85 

4,600 

2 

900 

1,400 

Elkhart.. 

.. 1,04855 

7,800 

4 

2,580 

1,320 

Fayette. 

175 98 

3,600 

2 

400 

1,400 

Floyd. 

878 05 

6,000 

1 

900 

2,100 

Fountain. 

444 00 

4,600 

1 

900 

1,500 

Franklin. 

294 00 

4,200 

1 

600 

1,500 

Fulton. 

753 00 

4,000 

2 

1,000 

1,000 

Gibson.. 

599 40 

5,000 

2 

1,200 

1,300 

Grant. 

,. 2,430 65 

9,000 

4 

2,000 

2,500 

Greene. 

779 45 

5,200 

2 

1,000 

1,600 

Hamilton . 

353 10 

6,000 

2 

1,320 

1,680 

Hancock. 

575 00 

4,400 

1 

650 

1,550 

Harrison.. 

750 00 

4,600 

3 

1,200 

1,100 

Hendricks. 

275 20 

5,000 

1 

750 

1,730 

Henry. 

694 35 

5,200 

2 

1,300 

1,300 

Howard. 

,. 1,310 95 

6,000 

6 

1,500 

1,500 

Huntington. 

994 30 

5,800 

2 

1,400 

1,500 

Jackson. 

135 50 

5,000 

1 

900 

1,600 

Jasper. 

.. 1,226 31 

3,400 

3 

800 

900 

Jay. 

887 75 

5,400 

3 

1,200 

1,500 

Jetferson. 

640 55 

5,200 

1 

1,050 

1,550 

Jennings . 

376 80 

3,800 

1 

600 

1,300 

Johnson . 

150 00 

4,600 

3 

1,200 

1,100 

Knox. 

855 70 

5,800 

2 

1,520 

1,380 

Kosciusko.. 

965 70 

5,800 

3 

1,600 

1,400 

Lagrange . 

354 90 

3,800 

1 

312 

1,588 

Lake ... 

.. 4,218 18 

6,400 

5 

2,500 

700 

Laporte. 

.. l,li^3 51 

7,400 

2 

1,200 

2,500 

Lawrence. 

825 03 

4,600 

1 

600 

1,700 

Madison. 

. 3,532 93 

9,600 

5 

3,300 

1,500 

Marion. 

. 9,777 00 

35,000 

17 

14,000 

3,500 

Marshall. 

,. 1,845 00 

5,000 

3 

1,200 

1,300 

^Martin. 

535 50 

3,400 

1 

3,000 

1,400 

Miami. 

.. 1,134 47 

5,000 

2 

1,320 

1,180 

Monroe.. 

299 25 

4,600 

5 

1,900 

400 

Montgomery ..., 

752 80 

5,800 

3 

1,620 

1,280 

Morgan. 

270 35 

4,600 

2 

850 

1,450 

Newton.. 

479 14 

2,800 

1 

500 

900 

Noble. 

582 55 

5,000 

2 

900 

1,600 

Ohio.. 

72 70 

3,200 

, , 


1,100 

Orange.. 

516 50 

3,600 

1 

700 

1,100 

Owen. 

391 00 

3,800 

2 

900 

1,000 
















































2 Years' 

2 Years' 


Paid 


County. 

Fees. 

Salary. 

Deputies. 

Deputies. 

Net Salary. 

Parke. 

.. $373 15 

$4,600 

4 

$1,200 

$1,100 

Perry. 

.. 1,177 90 

4,200 

2 

1,080 

1,020 

Pike. 

261 45 

4,200 

3 

900 

1,200 

Porter. 

653 70 

5,200 

4 

1,400 

1,200 

Posey. 

721 95 

4,800 

2 

1,000 

1,400 

Pulaski. 


3,200 

1 

600 

1,000 

Putnam. 

420 95 

4,800 

2 

1,000 

1,400 

Randolph. 

286 75 

5,600 

3 

1,500 

1,300 

Ripley. 

604 95 

4,600 

3 

624 

1,676 

Rush. 

.. 339 60 

4,822 

1 

572 

1,828 

Scott. 

92 25 

2,200 

2 

500 

600 

Shelby. 

364 70 

5,000 

3 

1,040 

1,360 

Spencer. 

771 60 

4,800 

3 

900 

1,500 

Starke. 

474 85 

2,200 

4 

300 

600 

Steuben. 

582 95 

8,600 

2 

830 

1,070 

St. Joseph. 

.. 1,88907 

9,200 




Sullivan. 

609 00 

4,800 

2 

1,000 

1,400 

Switzerland .... 


3,200 

2 

600 

1,000 

Tippecanoe.... 

.. 1,874 60 

7,800 

4 

1,875 

2,025 

Tipton . 

.. 1,248 95 

4,600 

3 

1,350 

950 

Union. 

82 10 

2,200 




Vanderburgh .. 

.. 1,501 51 

13,000 

2 

3,000 

3,500 

Vermillion. 

442 60 

3,400 

1 

480 

1,220 

Vigo. 

.. 1,78345 

11,600 

6 

3,300 

2,500 

Wabash. 

738 00 

5,600 

4 

1,500 

1,300 

Warren. 

205 70 

3,200 

1 

600 

1,000 

Warrick. 

386 00 

4,800 

4 

1,000 

1,400 

Washington.... 

531 83 

4,400 

2 

860 

1,340 

Wayne. 

.. 1,096 85 

7,800 

3 

2,444 

1,456 

Wells. 

781 60 

4,800 

1 

900 

1,500 

White. 

964 75 

4,200 

3 

900 

1,200 

Whitley. 

483 90 

4,200 

2 

1,050 

1,050 

Total. 

..$84,435 29 

$504,000 

233 

$119,228 

$125,152 


TREASUKEK^S TABLE. 


The Treasurers campensation presents a further difference in 
method, as his salary is not only paid irrespective of fees, hut the fees 
accruing under the collection of delinquent taxes, and in many in¬ 
stances the penalty thereon, are paid to the Treasurer in addition to 
the salary allowed him by law. 



































78 


The returns were asked from the Treasurers on the two years^ basis, 
but for convenience of presentation we adopt the yearly average of 
reports, showing the following results thereon. The number of depu¬ 
ties include those who do regular work and those employed during the 
busy term of the Treasurer: 


TREASURER. 



Delinquent 

Yearly 

Total 


Paid 

Net 

County. 

Fees. 

Salary. 

Com. 

Deputies. 

Deputies. 

Salary. 

Adams. 

$600 

$1,700 

$2,300 

4 

$620 

$1,680 

Allen. 

1,650 

4,800 

6,450 

7 

3,300 

3,150 

Bartholomew .... 

212 

2,100 

2,312 

3 

660 

1,652 

Benton. 

360 

1,300 

1,660 

4 

680 

980 

Blackford. 

1,852 

1,300 

3,152 

3 

700 

2,452 

Boone. 

600 

2,100 

2,700 

6 

1,300 

1,400 

Brown. 

328 

1,100 

1,428 

1 

50 

1,350 

Carroll. 

1,050 

1,700 

2,750 

2 

750 

2,000 

Cass. 

1,200 

2,500 

3,700 

2 

1,400 

2,300 

Clark .. 

1,200* 

2,300 

3,500* 

3 

1,200 

2,300* 

Clay . 

900 

2,300 

3,200 

6 

1,300 

2,000 

Clinton. 

1,156 

2,200 

3,356 

3 

1,600 

1,756 

Crawford. 

408 

1,400 

1,808 

1 

300 

1,508 

Daviess. 

1,975 

2,100 

4,075 

3 

895 

3,180 

Dearborn. 

300 

2,100 

2,400 

2 

1,120 

1,280 

Decatur. 

557 

1,900 

2,457 

2 

500 

1,957 

Dekalb. 

1,154 

2,100 

3,254 

6 

800 

2,654 

Delaware. 

2,479 

2,700 

5,179 

6 

2,000 

3,179 

Dubois. 

200 

1,700 

1,900 

3 

200 

1,900 

Elkhart. 

1,246 

3,000 

4,246 

3 

1,360 

2,886 

Fayette. 

417 

1,500 

1,917 

2 

650 

1,267 

Floyd. 

1,630 

2,300 

3,980 

4 

1,812 

2,168 

Fountain. 

1,039 

1,900 

2,939 

3 

1,340 

1,599 

Franklin. 

270 

1,600 

1,870 

1 

100 

1,770 

Fulton. 

765 

1,600 

2,365 

3 

750 

1,615 

Gibson. 

1,755 

2,100 

3,855 

3 

1,050 

2,805 

Grant. 

2,346 

2,800 

5,146 

5 

1,950 

3,196 

Greene. 

2,117 

2,000 

4,117 

3 

700 

3,417 

Hamilton. 

1,159 

2,200 

3,359 

2 

1,050 

2,309 

Hancock . 

439 

1,800 

2,239 

2 

750 

1,489 

Harrison. 

748 

1,800 

2,348 

3 

550 

1,998 

Hendricks. 

300 

1,900 

2,200 

1 

600 

1,000* 

Henry. 

600 

2,100 

2,700 

4 

810 

1,890 

Howard. 

1,073 

2,200 

3,273 

3 

700 

2,573 

Huntington. 

2,350 

2,200 

4,550 

3 

1,000 

3,550 

Jackson . 

328 

2,100 

2,628 

2 

600 

2,028 


♦Estimated. 



































County. 

Delinquent 

Yearly 

Total 


Paid 

Net 

Fees. 

Salary. 

Com. 

Deputies. 

Deputies. 

Salary. 

Jasper. 

. $9o5 

$1,200 

$2,155 

4 

$780 

$1,375 

Jay. 

1,870 

2,800 

4,170 

3 

1,434 

2,736 

Jefferson. 

720 

2,100 

2,820 

3 

1,200 

1,620 

Jennings. 

600 

1,500 

2,100 

1 

540 

1,560 

Johnson . 

370 

1,900 

2,270 

3 

870 

1,400 

Knox.*_ 

900 

2,200 

3,100 

2 

1,025 

2,075 

Kosciusko. 

1,400 

2,200 

3,600 

7 

1,245 

2,355 

Lagrange. 

100 

1,500 

1,600 

1 

255 

1,365 

Lake.. 

2,500 

2,700 

5,200 

4 

1,200 

4,000 

Laporte. 

639 

2,900 

3,539 

3 

820 

2,719 

Lawrence. 

1,080 

1,900 

2,980 

3 

650 

2,330 

Madison. 

2,600 

3,800 

6,400 

8 

2,500 

3,900 

Marion. 

6,334 

11,000 

17,334 

20 

17,000 

334 

Marshall . 

1,612 

2,100 

3,712 

5 

1,100 

2,612 

Martin. 

842 

1,400 

2,242 

2 

200 

2,042 

Miami. 

300 

2,000 

2,300 

1 

600 

1,700 

Monroe. 

900 

1,800 

2,700 

2 

250 

2,450 

Montgomery .... 

1,200 

2,200 

3,400 

5 

1,050 

2,350 

Morgan . 

907 

1,800 

2,707 

2 

1,000 

1,707 

Newton. 

600 

1,000 

1,600 

3 

450 

1,150 

Noble. 

722 

2,100 

2,822 

3 

730 

2,092 

Ohio. 

100 

900 

1,000 

1 

50 

950 

Orange./_ 

440 

1,500 

1,940 

1 

500 

1,440 

Owen. 

600 

1,500 

2,100 

1 

500 

1,600 

Parke . 

480 

1,800 

2,280 

2 

780 

1,500 

Perry. 

400 

1,700 

2,100 

2 

900 

1,200 

Pike. 

1,000 

1,700 

2,700 

3 

600 

2,100 

Porter . 

1,100 

1,800 

2,900 

3 

800 

2,100 

Posey.. 

2,800 

1,900 

4,700 

1 

720 

3,980 

Pulaski. 

900 

1,200 

2,100 

3 

450 

1,650 

Putnam. 

700 

2,000 

2,700 

3 

1,200 

1,500 

Randolph. 

420 

2,200 

2,620 

4 

720 

1,900 

Ripley. 

640 

1,800 

2,440 

3 

870 

1,570 

Rush. 

1,000 

1,900 

2,900 

1 

600 

2,300 

Scott. 

300 

800 

1,100 

1 

180 

920 

Shelby. 

180 

2,000 

. 2,180 

3 

1,100 

1,080 

Spencer . 

1,000 

1,900 

2,900 

3 

920 

1,980 

Starke... 

800 

800 

1,600 

1 

100 

1,500 

Steuben. 

600 

1,500 

2,100 

2 

400 

1,700 

St. Joseph. 

1,200 

3,300 

4,500 

4 

2,780 

1,720 

Sullivan. 

800 

1,900 

2,700 

2 

800 

1,900 

Switzerland. 

360 

1,400 

1,760 

2 

150 

1,510 

Tippecanoe . 

1,870 

2,900 

4,770 

2 

1,440 

3,330 

Tipton. 

800 

1,800 

2,600 

1 

600 

2,000 













































80 


County. 

Delinquent 

Fees. 

Yearly 

Salary. 

Total 

Com. 

Deputies. 

Paid 

Deputies. 

Net 

Salary. 

Union.. 

$0 60 

$900 

$960 



$960 

Vanderburgh .... 

3,000 

4,800 

7,800 

5 

$4,000 

3,800 

Vermillion. 

900 

1,400 

2,300 

1 

600 

1,700 

Vigo. 

3,681 

4,300 

7,981 

7 

2,000 

5,981 

Wabash. 

850 

2,200 

3,050 

3 

1,450 

1,600 

Warren. 

600 

1,300 

1,900 

2 

450 

1,450 

Warrick. 

950 

1,900 

2,850 

2 

560 

2,290 

Washington. 

900 

1,700 

2,600 

2 

700 

1,900 

Wayne. 

1,662 

2,900 

4,562 

3 

1,500 

3,062 

Wells. 

980 

1,900 

2,880 

4 

800 

2,080 

White. 

1,050 

1,600 

2,650 

3 

720 

1,930 

Whitley. 

700 

1,700 

2,400 

1 

720 

1,680 


Total. 197,737 $193,900 $290,587 279 $100,706 $189,973 


ANALYSIS 0¥ AUDITOR'S AND TREASURER’S TABLES. 

For the purpose of comparing the salaries paid the Auditors and 
Treasurers, including the fees of the latter, with the salaries paid the 
Clerks, the grouping in this analysis is carried out the same as that 
above. This will show the excess of payment to Auditoi'S and Treas¬ 
urers, or the reverse, over or under payments made to the Clerks in 
the same counties, and it will also show the relation of the Auditors’ 
and Treasurers’ compensation in the counties grouped on a basis of 
Clerks’ salaries, to fees collected and percentage of collection by 
Sheriffs and Recorders. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 1. 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Salary 

Paid. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Ohio. 

$1,100 

$1,100 

$36 

3.2 

Scott. 

1,100 

1,100 

46 

4.1 

Starke. 

1,100 

1,100 

237 

21.5 

Union. 

1,100 

1,100 

41 

3.7 

Total. 

$4,400 

$4,400 

$360 

8.1 


While the total salary allowed these four Auditors is $400 more 
than the total allowed the four Clerks, the payment of the salary of 
the latter contingent upon fees, is $1,236 less, with 69.6 greater per¬ 
centage of fees. 























81 


TREASURER. GROUP 1. 


The Treasurers of two of these counties, Scott and Starke, receive 
$800 each, or $1,000 and $1,600, respectively, with delinquent tax fees 
added, the other two Treasurers receiving $900 each, or a total com¬ 
pensation of $1,000 for that of Ohio and $960 for that of Union, the 
comparison being as follows: 


Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Scott. $800 $300 $1,100 27.2 

Starke. 800 800 1,600 50.0 

Ohio. 900 100 1,000 10.0 

Union. 900 60 960 6.0 


Totals. $3,400 $1,260 $4,660 


The total salary, allowed under the law, of these four Treasurers is 
$600 less than the total salary' allowed the Clerks, and $1,000 less than 
the total allowed the Auditors, hut the payment thereon, including 
fees, is $1,496 more than the total amount paid the Clerks, and $260 
more than the amount paid the Auditors, the percentage of fees being 
18.9 per cent, more than that of the Auditor, and 50.7 per cent, less 
than that of the Clerk. 

The comparisons respectively with the total amount allowed the 
Sheriffs are $300 more for the Auditor and $700 less for the Treasurer 
and $560 more paid the Treasurers, hut compared with the amount 
paid the Sheriffs the Auditors were paid $1,997 more and the Treas¬ 
urers $2,257 more. 


j 

AUDITOR. GROUP 2. 


Compared with Group 2 of the Clerks, the Auditors are allowed the 
following: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Brown. $1,300 $1,300 $103 7.9 

Newton. 1,400 1,400 239 17.9 

Pulaski. 1,600 1,600 385 24.0 


Totals. $4,300 $4,300 $727 16.9 


The total salary allowed the Auditors of these three counties is 
$400 more than the total allowed the Clerks. They were paid $674 
more, with a percentage of fees 57.4 per cent. less. 


6—F. AND S. Com. 

















82 


TREASURER. GROUP 2. 


I'he Treasurers of these three counties show the following com¬ 
parisons: 


Salary Fees Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Collected. Compensation. of Fees. 

Newton. $1,000 $600 $1,600 37.5 

Brown. 1,100 328 1,428 22.9 

Pulaski. 1,200 900 2,100 42.8 


Totals. $3,300 $1,828 $5,128 35.6 


While the total salary of these three Treasurers show $1,000 less 
than that of the Auditors, they were paid $828 more, with 19 greater 
percentage of fees. Comparing the total allowance of the Treasurers^ 
salaries, under the law, it is found to be $600 less than the total allow¬ 
ance of the Clerks’ salaries, but in matter of payment $1,502 more, 
with 38.7 less percentage of collection. 

Comparing the total allowance of the Auditor and Treasurer re¬ 
spectively with the total allowance of the Sheriff, in Group 2, includ¬ 
ing the three counties named with that of Jasper added, we find the 
total allowance of the Auditor to be $1,000 less, and that of the Treas¬ 
urer $2,000 less, but the payment of the Auditor $327 more and the 
Treasurer $1,155 more, compared with the payment to the four 
Sheriffs. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 3. 

The Auditors of this group, compared with Group 3 of the Clerks, 
four counties have the following: 


Salary SrUary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Benton. $1,600 $1,600 $242 15.1 

Jasper. 1,700 1,700 613 36.0 

Switzerland. 1,600 1,600 . . 

Warren. 1,600 1,600 101 6.3 


Totals. $6,500 $6,500 $956 14.7 


This allowance of salary aggregates $500 more than the total al¬ 
lowance of the Clerks of the same counties, the payment of salary 
being $1,273 more, with 75.3 per cent, less percentage of fees. 




















TREASURER. GROUP 3. 


Comparing the salary allowed, fees, total compensation and percent¬ 
age of collection, of the Treasurers of these four counties, we have, 
as follows: 


Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Benton. |1,300 $360 $1,660 21.6 

Jasper. 1,200 955 2,155 44.3 

Switzerland. 1,400 360 1,760 20.4 

Warren. 1,300 600 1,900 30.4 


Totals. $5,200 $2,275 $7,475 30.4 


The total salary allowed these Treasurers is $1,300 less than the 
total allowed the Auditors of the same counties, and $800 less than 
the total allowed the Clerks, the total compensation of the Treasurers 
being $975 more than the Auditor and $2,248 more than the Clerks, 
with 15.7 per cent, more percentage in favor of the Treasurers, as 
compared with tlie Auditors, and 59.6 per cent, less as compared with 
the Clerk. 

The Sheriffs of these counties have $5,900 total salary, the total al¬ 
lowance being $600 less than the total allowance of the Auditor, and 
$700 more than the total allowance of the Treasurers, but the Sheriffs 
were paid $2,576 less than the Auditors, and $3,279 less than the total 
compensation of the Treasurers. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 4. 

Comparing the Auditors^ salaries with the Clerks^ salaries in Group 
4, we have as follows: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Blackford. $1,700 $1,700 $329 19.3 

Crawford. 1,700 1,700 152 8.9 

Martin. 1,700 1,700 267 15.7 

Vermillion. 1,700 1,700 221 13.0 


Totals. $6,800 $6,800 $969 14.2 


The total allowance of the Auditors exceeds the total allowance of 
the Clerks by $400, the total payment to the Auditors being $1,205 
more, with 63.8 per cent, less percentage. 



















84 


TREASURER. GROUP 4. 


We have the follovhng comparison for the Treasurers of these four 
counties: 


Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Blackford. $1,300 $1,852 $3,152 58.7 

Crawford. 1,400 408 1,800 22.6 

Martin. 1,400 842 2,242 37.5 

Vermillion. 1,400 900 2,300 39.1 


Totals. $5,500 $4,002 $9,494 42.1 


The Treasurers, with $1,300 less total allowance than the Auditors, 
were paid $2,694 more than the Auditors, including delinquent tax 
fees, the percentage of the latter being 27.9 per cent, more than the 
Auditors’ fees. 

The total salary allowed the Sheriffs of these four counties was only 
$400 less than the total allowed the Auditors and $900 more than the 
allowance to the Treasurers, hut the total payment to the Sheriffs was 
$832 less than to the Auditor and $3,426 less than the total paid 
to the Treasurers. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 5. 


The Auditors of the counties in Clerk Group No. 5 were allowed 
and paid the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Salai'y 

Paid. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Fayette. 

$1,800 

$1,800 

$87 

4.8 

Orange.. 

1,800 

1,800 

258 

14.3 

Jennings. 

1,900 

1,900 

188 

9.8 

Totals. 

$5,500 

'$5,500 

$533 

9.6 


With $400 greater total allowance the Auditors were paid $1,802 
more than the Clerks, the percentage of collection of fees by the 
Clerks being 64.5 per cent, greater. 



















TREASURERS’ GROUP 4, PAGE 84. 


Erratum. Read Blackford county : Fees $926 ; total com¬ 
pensation, $2,226; percentage of fees, 41.1; grand total fees, 
$3,076; grand total compensation, $8,468; general average 
percentage of fees, 35.0. The Treasurers of this group were 
paid in salary and fees $1,668 more than the Auditors of the 
same counties were paid, the average percentage of the latter’s 
fees being 20.8 less. The total payment to Sheriffs in salary 
was $2,068 less than the Treasurers’ total compensation. 


1 











85 


TREASURER. GROUP 6. 

The Treasurers’ total salary and compensation paid them show the 
following comparisons: 


Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Fayette. $1,500 $417 $1,917 21.7 

Jennings. 1,500 600 2,100 28.5 

Orange. 1,500 440 1,940 22.7 


Totals. $4,500 $1,457 $5,957 24.4 


With $1,000 less salary than the Auditors of these three counties, 
in the aggregate, the Treasurers were paid $457 more, with 14.8 per 
cent, greater percentage. The Auditors have a total allowance, under 
the salary law, of $500 more than the Sheriffs and were paid $2,480 
more, while the Treasurers have $5,000 less and were paid $2,927 
more than the Sheriffs. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 6. 

The Auditors of the counties comprising Group 6 of the Clerks 
received tlie following: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Lagrange. $1,900 $1,900 $177 9.3 

Owen. 1,900 1,900 195 10.2 

Steuben. 1,900 1,900 291 15.5 


Totals. $5,700 $5,700 $663 11.6 


The total allowance of the Auditors exceeded the allowance of the 
Clerks by $300, and they were paid $720 more, with 70 per cent, less 
percentage of fees. 


TREASURER. GROUP 6. 


The Treasurers of these counties were allowed and paid the 
following: 


Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Lagrange. $1,500 $100 $1,600 6.2 

Owen. 1,500 600 2,100 28.5 

Steuben. 1,500 600 2,100 28.5 


Totals. $4,500 $1,300 $5,800 22.4 


























86 


With $1,200 less total salary allowed, these three Treasurers were 
paid, in the aggregate, $100 more than the Auditors. 

With $500 more salary allowed, the Auditors were paid $1,429 more 
than the Sheriffs, the total salary of the Treasurers being $700 less 
than the Sheriffs, and the total payment $1,529 more. 


AUDITOR. GROUP 7. 


The salaries of the Auditors of the following counties, compared 
with the Clerks^ salaries of Group 7 are as follows: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Franklin. $2,100 $2,100 $147 7.0 

White. 2,100 2,100 482 22.9 

Fulton. 2,000 2,000 376 18.8 


Totals. $6,200 $6,200 $1,005 16.2 


The total salary allowed these Auditors exceeds the total salary paid 
the Clerks, in the same counties, by $500, the excess of payment to 
the Auditors being the same. 

TREASURER. GROUP 7. 

The Treasurers of these counties show the following comparison: 


Salary Fees Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Collected. Compensation. of Fees. 

Franklin. $1,600 $270 $1,870 14.4 

Fulton. 1,600 ^ 765 2,365 32.3 

White. 1,600 1,050 2,650 39.6 


Totals.... $4,800 $2,085 $6,885 30.3 


Compared with the Auditors’, the Treasurers’ total salary allowed 
was $1,400 less, but with fees they were paid $685 more. Compared 
with the Clerks of the same counties the Treasurers were paid $1,185 
more, with a total allowance of salary of $900 less. 

. Comparing the total salaries allowed the Auditors and Treasurers 
of these three counties, with the total salary allowed the Sheriffs 
thereof, we have an excess for the Auditor of $600, while the total 
salary of the Treasurer is $800 less, but the Auditors are paid $1,000 
more, and the total compensation of the Treasurers is $1,683 more. 


















AUDITOR. GROUP 8. 


The compaxison in Group 8 of the Auditors^ salaries with the 
Clerks’ salaries is as follows: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

Comity, Allowed, Paid, Collected. of Fees. 

Perry. $2,100 $2,100 $588 28.0 

Pike. 2,100 2,100 130 6.0 

Whitley. 2,100 2,100 241 ’ 11.4 


Totals. $6,300 $6,300 $959 15.4 


The excess of total allowance to the Auditors over the total allow¬ 
ance to Clerks is $300, the excess of payment being $1,126, and the 
Clerks’ percentage of collection being 61.7 per cent, greater. 

The Auditors’ total allowance, compared with the Sheriffs’ of these 
counties is $600 in excess, with an excess of payment of $5,490. 

TREASURER. GROUP 8. 

The Treasurers of these three counties are allowed salary, and have 
been paid as follows: 


, Salary Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Fees. Compensation. of Fees. 

Perry. $1,700 $400 $2,100 19.0 

Pike. 1,700 1,000 2,700 37.0 

Whitley. 1,700 700 2,400 29.1 


Totals. $5,100 $2,100 $7,200 29.1 


Comparing the total salary allowed the Auditors of these three 
counties with the total salary allowed the Treasurers, we find the 
Treasurers’ to be $1,400 less, but payment, inculding fees, is, on the 
average, $900 more; the total allowance of the Treasurers, for the 
three counties, is '$900 less than that of the Clerks, and payment 
$2,026 more. 

The Treasurers’ total allowance is $700 less than the total allow¬ 
ance of the Sheriffs, and total payment $4,590 more. 

















88 


AUDITOR. GROUP 9. • 


The payments to Auditors, in Group 9 of the Clerks, the latter re¬ 
ceiving $2,100 each, were as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Salary 

Paid. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Adams. 

$2,300 

$2,300 

$435 

14.5 

Carroll. 

2,300 

2,300 

85 

3.6 

Dubois. 

2,300 

2,300 

337 

14.6 

Hancock. 

2,200 

2,200 

287 

13.0 

Harrison. 

2,300 

2,300 

375 

16.3 

Morgan. 

2,300 

2,300 

135 

5.5 

Parke . 

2,300 

2,300 

186 

8.0 

Tipton . 

2,300 

2,300 

624 

27.1 

Totals. 

$18,300 

$18,300 

$2,464 

13.4 


The excess of salary allowed the Auditors of these eight counties is 
$500 more than that allowed the Clerks, the payment to the Auditors 
being $3,891 more. The Sheriffs of these counties have a total allow¬ 
ance of $2,500 less, and were paid $5,968 less than the Auditors. 


TREASURER. GROUP 9. 


The Treasurers of these counties considered, above are allowed and 
have been paid the following: 



Salary 


Total 

Percentage 

County. 

Allowed. 

Fees. 

Compensation. 

of Fees. 

Adams. 

$1,700 

$600 

$2,300 

26.0 

Carroll. 

1,700 

1,050 

2,750 

38.1 

Dubois. 

1,700 

200 

1,900 

10.5 

Hancock. 

1,800 

439 

2,239 

19.6 

Harrison. 

1,800 

748 

2,548 

29.3 

Morgan. 

1,800 

907 

2,707 

33.5 

Parke. 

1,800 

480 

2,280 

21.0 

Tipton. 

1,800 

800 

2,600 

30.7 

Totals. 

$14,100 

$5,024 

$19,324 

25.0 


Comparing the total allowance of the Treasurers with that of the 
Auditors, it is found that they have $4,200 less, but have been paid 
$1,024 more. 

Compared with the total allowance of the Clerks, the Treasurers 
have a total allowance of $2,700 less, but the Treasurers were paid 
$4,915 more. Compared with the total allowance of salary of the 
Sheriffs, under the law. the Treasurers have $1,700 less, but have 
been paid $6,992 more. 



























AUDITOR. GROUP 10. 


The x4iiditors of the counties, classified according to the Clerks^ 
salaries, in Group 10, have received the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Salaries 

Paid. 

Pees 

Collected. 

Percentage oj 
Fees. 

Fountain. 

$2,400 

$2,400 

$222 

9.2 

Hendricks. 

2,500 

2,500 

137 

5.4 

Johnson. 

2,300 

2,300 

75 

3.2 

Lawrence. 

2,300 

2,300 

412 

17.9 

Posey. 

2,400 

2,400 

360 

15.0 

Putnam. 

2,400 

2,400 

210 

8.7 

Ripley. 

2,300 

2,300 

302 

13.1 

Spencer. 

2,400 

2,400 

385 

16.0 

Sullivan. 

2,400 

2,400 

304 

12.6 

Warrick. 

2,400 

2,400 

193 

8.0 

Wells. 

2,400 

2,400 

390 

16.2 

Washington. 

2,200 

2,200 

265 

12.0 

Totals. 

$28,400 

$28,400 

$3,255 

11.4 


The total salary allowed the Auditors of these twelve counties ex¬ 
ceeds the total allowance to the Clerks hy $2,000, and the papnent to 
the Auditors exceeds the pa 3 rinent to the Clerks by $3,750. 

Compared with the Sheriffs, the total allowance of the Auditors is 
$3,600 more and payment $11,819 more. 


TREASURER. GROUP 10. 


The Treasurers of the twelve counties treated above show the fol¬ 
lowing salaries and compensations: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Fees. 

Total 

Compensation. 

Percentage oJ 
Fees. 

Fountain. 

$1,900 

$1,039 

$2,939 

35.3 

Hendricks. 

1,900 

300 

2,200 

13.6 

Johnson. 

1,900 

370 

2,270 

16.2 

Lawrence. 

1,900 

1,080 

2,980 

36.2 

Posey. 

1,900 

2,800 

4,700 

59.5 

Putnam. 

2,000 

700 

2,700 

25.9 

Ripley. 

1,800 

640 

2,440 

26.2 

Spencer. 

1,900 

1,000 

2,900 

34.4 

Sullivan. 

1,900 

800 

2,700 

29.6 

Warrick. 

1,900 

950 

2,850 

33.3 

Wells. 

1,900 

980 

2,880 

34.0 

Washington. 

1,700 

900 

2,600 

34.6 

Totals. 

$22,600 

$11,559 

$34,159. 

33.8 




































90 


Comparing the total of Treasurers^ salaries allowed, with that of the 
Auditors of these counties, we find it to be $6,200 less than the allow¬ 
ance of the Auditors, hut the payment $5,759 more. 

The Treasurers^ allowance, compared with that of the Clerks^ as to 
total, is $3,800 less and the payment $7,309 more. 

Relative to the Sheriffs^ allowance, compared with that of the 
Treasurers’, we find the former to he only $2,200 more, while the 
pa 3 Tnent to the Sheriffs is $17,578 less. 

AUDITOR. GROUP 11. 

The Auditors of these counties, classified under Group 11 of the 
Clerks, show the following: 


Salary Salary Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Fees. of Fees. 

Decatur. $2,400 $2,400 $228 9.5 

Porter. 2,600 2,600 326 12.5 

Rush. 2,400 2,400 169 7.0 

Monroe. 2,300 2,300 149 6.4 


Totals. $9,700 $9,700 $872 8.9 


The salary allowed and payment made thereon to the Auditors 
in these counties exceeded hy only $500 the salary allowed and.pay¬ 
ment thereon to the^ Clerks. 

Comparing the total allowance of salary, in the four counties, with 
the total allowance to the Sheriffs we have $1,100 more in favor of the 
Auditor and $3,953 greater payment. 


TREASURER. GROUP 11. 

The Treasurers of these four counties show the following com¬ 
parison: 


Salary Fees Total Percentage 

County. Allowed. Collected. Compensation. of Collections. 

Decatur. $1,900 $557 $2,457 22.2 

Porter. 1,800 1,100 2,900 37.9 

Rush. 1,900 1,000 2,900 34.4 

Monroe. 1,800 1,900 2,700 33.3 


Totals. $7,400 $4,557 $10,957 41.4 


The Treasurers are allowed $2,300 less than the Auditor, and have 
$1,257 greater payment. 

Compared with the Clerks, the Treasurers have $1,800 less allow¬ 
ance and $1,757 greater payment; compared with the Sheriffs, the 
Treasurers have $1,200 less allowance and $6,310 greater payment. 




















91 


AUDITOR. GROUP 12. 

The Auditors of the counties classified under Group 12, according 
to the Clerks’ salaries, were allowed and paid the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Salary 

Fees 

Percentage 

Allowed. 

Paid. 

Collected. 

of Fees. 

Bartholomew. 

12,600 

$2,600 

$214 

8.2 

Dearborn. 

2,500 

2,500 

394 

15.7 

Dekalb. 

2,500 

2,500 

332 

13.2 

Gibson. 

2,500 

2,500 

490 

19.9 

Greene. 

2,600 

2,600 

389 

14.9 

Jackson. 

2,500 

2,500 

67 

2.6 

Jefferson. 

2,600 

2,600 

320 

13.3 

Miami . 

2,500 

2,500 

567 

22.6 

Marshall. 

2,500 

2,500 

922 

36.8 

Noble. 

2,500 

2,500 

291 

11.6 

Shelby. 

2,500 

2,500 

182 

7.2 

Totals. 

127,800 

$27,800 

$4,177 

15.0 


The total allowance of the Auditors exceeds the total allowance of 
the Clerks, in the same counties, by $1,400, the payment to the Clerks 
being $1,803 less. 

Comparing the Sheriffs’ total allowance with that of the Auditors, 
• we find the former to he $2,900 less, with payment $8,932 less. 


TREASURER. GROUP 12. 

The Treasurers of these counties were allowed and paid the fol¬ 
lowing: 



Salary 

Fees 

Total 

Percentage 

County. 

Allo^ved. 

Collected. 

Compensation. 

of Fees. 

Bartholomew . . . 

$2,100 

$212 

$2,312 

9.1 

Dearborn. 

2,100 

300 

2,400 

12.5 

Dekalb. 

2,100 

1,154 

3,254 

35.4 

Gibson. 

2,100 

755 

3,855 

45.5 

Greene. 

2,000 

2,117 

4,117 

51.4 

Jackson. 

' 2,100 

528 

2,628 

20.0 

Jefferson . 

2,100 

720 

2,820 

25.5 

Miami . 

2,000 

300 

2,300 

13.0 

Marshall. 

2,100 

1,612 

3,712 

43.4 

Noble. 

2,100 

722 

2,822 

25.5 

Shelby . 

2,000 

180 

2,180 

8.2 

Totals. 

$22,800 

$8,600 

$32,400 

26.5 


































92 


Comparing the total allowance of the Treasurers with that of the 
Auditors, we find the Treasurers^ to he $5,000 less, hut the payment 
to he $4,600 more. 

Comparing the Treasurers’ total allowance with that of the Clerks’ 
we have the Treasurers’ allowance at $3,600 less and payment $6,203 
more. 

Comparing with the S.heriffs’ the Treasurers’ total allowance we 
find the Treasurers’ to be $2,100 less and payment $13,532 more. 

AUDITOR. GROUP 13. 

The Auditors, in the counties classified under Group 13 of the 
Clerks, were allowed the following: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed. Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Boone. $2,800 $2,800 $463 16.5 

Daviess. 2,800 2,800 477 17.0 

Henry. 2,600 2,600 347 13.3 

Jay. 2,700 2,700 443 16.4 


Totals. $10,900 $10,900 $1,730 15.8 


Comparing the total allowance of the Auditors with that of the 
Clerks, that of the former was $500 more, the excess of pa 3 rment being 
a like amount. 

Compared with the total allowance of the Sheriffs we find that the 
Auditors have $1,500 more, and have been paid $2,956 more. 


TREASURER. GROUP 13. 


The Treasurers 

of this group 

received 

the following 

salaries and 

compensation: 

Salary 

Fees 

Total 

Percentage 

County. 

Allowed. 

Collected. 

Compensation. 

of Fees. 

Boone . 

$2,100 

$600 

$2,700 

22.2 

Daviess. 

2,100 

1,975 

4,075 

48.4 

Henry. 

2,100 

600 

2,700 

22.2 

Jay. 

2,300 

1,870 

4,170 

44.8 

Totals. 

$8,600 

$5,045 

$13,645 

36.9 


These Treasurers are allowed $2,300 less than the Auditors, but 
were paid, with fees, $2,745 more; their allowonce is $1,800 less than 
that of the Clerks, but they were paid $3,245 more; they have $800 
less allowance than the Sheriffs’ but have been paid $5,703 more. 


















93 


AUDITOR. GROUP 14. 


The Auditors, classified under Group 14 of the Clerks, are allowed 
and have been paid as follows: 


County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Salary 

Paid. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Clark. 

$3,000 

$3,000 

$328 

10.9 

Clinton. 

2,900 

2,900 

338 

11.6 

Huntington. 

2,900 

2,900 

497 

17.1 

Hamilton. 

3,000 

3,000 

176 

5.8 

Howard. 

3,000 

3,000 

655 

21.8 

Knox. 

2,900 

2,900 

427 

14.7 

Kosciusko. 

2,900 

2,900 

482 

16.6 

Randolph. 

2,800 

2,800 

572 

20.4 

Totals. 

$23,400 

$23,400 

$3,475 

14.8 


These Auditors are allowed and were paid $1,800 more, in the ag¬ 
gregate, than the Clerks. They are allowed $3,000 more than the 
Sheriffs, and were paid $4,942 more. 


TREASURER. GROUP 14. 


The Treasurers of these counties received the following: 


County. 

Salary 

A Housed. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Total 

Compensation. 

Percentagt 
of Fees. 

Clark. 

$2,300 

$1,200 

$3,500 

52.1 

Clinton. 

2,200 

1,156 

3,356 

34.4 

Huntington. 

2,200 

2,350 

4,550 

51.6 

Hamilton. 

2,200 

1,159 

3,359 

34.5 

Howard. 

2,200 

1,073 

3,273 

32.7 

Knox. 

2,200 

900 

3,100 

29.0 

Kosciusko. 

2,200 

1,400 

3,600 

38.8 

Randolph. 

2,200 

420 

2,620 

16.0 

Totals.. 

$17,700 

$9,658 

$26,158 

36.9 


These Treasurers are allowed $5,700 less than the Auditors, but 
have been paid $3,708 more, including fees. 

They are allowed $3,900 less than the Clerks, hut were paid $4,558 
more. 

They are allowed $2,700 less than the Sheriffs, but were paid $7,700 


more. 





























94 


AUDITOR. GROUP 15. 


The Auditors of the counties classified under Group 15 of the Clerks 
show the following: 


Salary Salary Fees Percentage 

County. Allowed, Paid. Collected. of Fees. 

Clay. $3,000 $3,000 $605 21.1 

Floyd. 3,000 3,000 436 14.6 

Montgomery. 2,900 2,900 376 13.3 

Wabash. 2,800 2,800 369 13.1 


Totals. $11,700 $11,700 $1,789 15.2 


These Auditors are allowed and were paid $500 more than the 
Clerks. 

They are allowed $200 more than the Sheriffs, and were paid $3,381 
more. 


TREASURER. GROUP 15. 


The Treasurers are allowed and received the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Alloioed. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Total 

Compensation. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Clay. 

$2,300 

$900 

$3,200 

28.1 

Floyd. 

2,300 

1,680 

3,980 

42.2 

Montgomery. 

2,200 

1,200 

3,400 

35.2 

Wabash. 

2,200 

850 

3,050 

27.8 

Totals. 

$9,000 

$4,630 

$13,630 

33.9 


The Treasurers are allowed $2,700 less than the Auditors, but have 
been paid $1,930 more. 

They are allowed $2,200 less than the Clerks, but have been paid 
$2,430 more. 

They are allowed $1,500 less than the Sheriffs, but have been paid 
$5,311 more. 



















95 


AUDITOR. GROUP 16. 


The Auditors of the counties classified under Group 16 of the Clerks 
are allowed and have received the following: 


County. 

Salary 

Allou'ed. 

Salary 

Paid. 

Fees 

Collected. 

Percentage 
of Fees. 

Allen. 

$6,500 

$6,500 

$2,674 

41.1 

Cass. 

3,600 

3,600 

254 

7.0 

Delaware. 

3,700 

3,700 

733 

19.8 

Elkhart. 

3,900 

3,900 

524 

13.4 

Grant. 

4,500 

4,500 

1,215 

27.0 

Lake. 

3,200 

3,200 

2,109 

65.9 

Laporte.. 

3,700 

3,700 

596 

16.1 

Madison. 

4,800 

4,800 

1,766 

36.7 

St. Joseph. 

4,600 

4,600 

944 

20.5 

Tippecanoe . 

3,900 

3,900 

937 

24.0 

Vanderburgh. 

6,500 

6,500 

750 

11.5 

Vigo. 

5,800 

5,800 

891 

15.3 

Wayne. 

3,900 

3,900 

548 

14.0 

Totals. 

$58,600 

$58,600 

$13,841 

23.6 

These Auditors 

are allowed and were 

paid $1,700 more 

than the 


Clerks. 


They are allowed $5,300 more than the Sheriffs, and were paid $12,- 
900 more. 


TREASURER. GROUP 16. 


The Treasurers of the counties, noted immediately above, are al¬ 
lowed and have received the following: 



Salary 


Total 

Percentage 

County. 

Allowed. 

Fees.. 

Compensation. 

of Fees. 

Allen. 

$4,800 

$1,650 

$6,450 

25.5 

Cass. 

2,500 

1,200 

3,700 

32.4 

Delaware. 

2,700 

2,479 

5,179 

47.8 

Elkhart. 

3,000 

1,246 

4,246 

29.3 

Grant. 

2,800 

2,346 

5,146 

45.5 

Lake. 

2,700 

2,500 

5,200 

48.0 

Laporte. 

2,900 

639 

3,539 

18.0 

Madison. 

3,800 

2,600 

6,400 

40.6 

St. Joseph. 

3,300 

1,200 

4,500 

26.6 

Tippecanoe . 

2,900 

1,870 

4,770 

39.2 

Vanderburgh. 

4,800 

3,000 

7,800 

38.4 

Vigo. 

4,300 

3,681 

7,981 

46.1 

Wayne. 

2,900 

1,662 

4,562 

36.4 

Totals. 

$43,400 

$26,073 

$69,473 

37.9 


These Treasurers are allowed $15,200 less than the Auditors, but 
were paid $10,875 more. 




































96 


They are allowed $13,500 less and have been paid, including fees, 
$12,573 more than the Clerks. 

They are allowed $7,900 less than the Sheriffs, and have been paid 
$23,781 more. 

Comparing the allow^ance of salary of the Auditor of Marion County 
with that of the total of the four highest in the above we find it to be 
$6,100 less. 

Comparing the allowance of the Treasurer of Marion County with 
the total allowance of the four next highest it is found that the Treas¬ 
urer’s salary of Marion County is $6,700 less, while his total com¬ 
pensation, including fees, was only $366 less than the total salary, but 
$10,897 less than the total compensation of the Treasurers of the four 
counties considered. 

It is to be observed that in this analysis of Tieasurers’ salaries and 
total compensation no account has been taken of the extra amounts 
paid them by cities and incorporated towns for acting as their Treas¬ 
urers. For instance, the Treasurer of Marion County receives, in ad¬ 
dition to his salary of $11,000, paid by the county, $8,000 paid by the 
city, making a total of $19,000 in salary, and a total compensation, 
with delinquent fees included, of $25,700, or $2,531 less than the total 
compensation of the four counties next highest, not including the ex¬ 
tra compensation paid the Treasurers thereof for their services as City 
Treasurers. 


IV. 


AUDITOR AND TREASURER. 


As has been elsewhere noted in this report, the compensation of 
Auditors and Treasurers, under the law of 1895, is not dependent 
upon fees, their varying salaries being paid directly out of the county 
fund. Therefore, in computing the relative rank of counties as to 
salaries paid these officers, their salaries paid rank the same as salaries 
allowed. But their rank as to total payments, including every item 
of compensation in the course of a year, together with delinquent tax 
fees, paid the Treasurers, differs greatly. 

For the convenience and force of comparison the two offices are con¬ 
sidered together in order to show, not only the relative rank of com¬ 
pensation of Auditors to Auditors and Treasurers to Treasurers, but 
the rank of Treasurers to Auditors. 

The grouping, according to salary allowed, salary paid, and rank 
as to fees collected and total payment, is as follows: 

AUDITOR. TREASURER. 


County. 

Salary 

Allnived. 

Total 

Pay. 

Fees. 

County. 

Salary 

Allowed. 

Total 

Pay. Fees. 

Ohio. 

... $1,100 

92 

92 

Scott . 

... $800 

90 

85 

Scott. 

... 1,100 

91 

90 

Starke....... 

800 

83 

52 

Starke. 

... 1,100 

89 

62 

Ohio. 

900 

92 

91 

Union. 

... 1,100 

90 

91 

Union. 

900 

91 

92 

Brown. 

... 1,300 

88 

83 

Newton. 

... 1,000 

89 

68 

Newton.. 

... 1,400 

87 

61 

Brown. 

... 1,100 

88 

81 

Warren. 

... 1,600 

84 

84 

Jasper. 

... 1,200 

84 

39 

Switzerland... 

... 1,600 

85 

89 

Pulaski. 

. . 1,200 

85 

47 

Pulaski. 

,.. 1,600 

86 

35 





Benton. 

.. 1,600 

83 

59 

Benton . 

... 1,300 

82 

79 





Blackford.... 

... 1,300 

79 

14 

Blackford. 

.. 1,700 

79 

45 

Warren. 

,.. 1,300 

86 

67 

Crawford. 

.. 1,700 

82 

76 





Jasper. .. 

.. 1,700 

80 

14 

Crawford ...., 

... 1,400 

87 

75 

Martin. 

.. 1,700 

78 

55 

Martin. 

.. 1,400 

63 

49 

Vermillion.... 

.. 1,700 

81 

65 

Switzerland .. 

... 1,400 

80 

78 





Vermillion..., 

... 1,400 

53 

46 


7—F. AND S. Com. —97— 































98 


AUDITOR. TREASURER. 



Sol ary 

Total 



Salary 

Total 


County. 

Allowed 

Pay. 

Fees. 

County. 

Allowed 

Pay. 

Fees. 

Orange. 

... . $1,800 

74 

57 





Fayette. 

.... 1,800 

77 

85 

Fayette. 

. $1,500 

71 

74 





Jennings. 

. 1,500 

69 

66 

Lagrange... 

.... 1,900 

75 

73 

Lagrange. 

. 1,500 

81 

90 

Jennings.... 

.... 1,900 

76 

70 

Orange . 

. 1,500 

78 

71 

Steuben. 

.... 1,900 

72 

52 

Owen. 

. 1,500 

75 

64 

Owen. 

. 1,900 

73 

68 

Steuben. 

. 1,500 

77 

65 

Fulton. 

. ... 2,000 

35 

36 

Franklin. 

. 1,600 

72 

86 

Franklin.,.. 

_ 2,100 

65 

78 

Fulton. 

,. 1,600 

76 

53 

Perry. 

.. . 2,100 

67 

17 

White. 

. 1,600 

44 

32 

Pike. 

.... 2,100 

70 

82 





White. 

.... 2,100 

71 

23 

Adams. 

. 1,700 

70 

63 

Whitley .. .. 

.... 2,100 

69 

60 

Carroll. 

. 1,700 

40 

33 





Dubois. 

. 1,700 

73 

88 

Hancock. . .. 

. 2,200 

68 

54 

Perry. 

. 1,700 

74 

76 

Washington 

. 2,200 

66 

56 

Pike. 

.. 1,700 

61 

37 





Washington.. , . 

,. 1,700 

58 

45 

Adams. 

. 2.300 

64 

28 

Whitley. 

. 1,700 

67 

57 

Carroll. 

_ 2,300 

63 

86 





Dubois. 

. 2,300 

62 

43 

Hancock. 

. 1,800 

64 

72 

Harrison.... 

.... 2,300 

61 

38 

Harrison. 

. 1,800 

48 

54 

Johnson .... 

.... 2,300 

42 

87 

Monroe. 

. 1,800 

68 

44 

Lawrence ... 

.... 2,300 

53 

30 

Morgan. 

. 1,800 

38 

41 

Monroe. 

.... 2,300 

58 

77 

Parke. 

. 1,800 

62 

70 

Morgan.... 

. 2,300 

48 

81 

Porter. 

.. 1,800 

46 

29 

Parke. 

. 2,300 

60 

71 

Ripley. 

. 1,800 

66 

59 

Ripley _ 

. 2,300 

38 

50 

Tipton. 

.. 1,800 

45 

51 

Tipton. 

.... 2,300 

46 

13 





Decatur. 

_ 2,400 

52 

63 

Decatur. 

.. 1,900 

49 

69 

Fountain ... 

_ 2,400 

59 

64 

Fountain. 

. 1,900 

52 

34 

Posey. 

.... 2,400 

47 

40 

Hendricks . . .. 

. 1,900 

47 

84 

Putnam.. . . 

. 2,400 

57 

67 

Johnson . 

. 1,900 

65 

77 

Rush. 

. 2,400 

56 

75 

Lawrence. 

. 1,900 

27 

30 

Spencer.... 

. 2,400 

55 

34 

Posey. 

,. 1,900 

22 

4 

Sullivan . . . . 

. 2,400 

54 

49 

Rush. 

. 1,900 

54 

36 

Warrick . .., 

. 2,400 

49 

69 

Spencer.. 

.. 1,900 

55 

35 

Wells. 

. 2,400 

45 

32 

Sullivan. 

. 1,900 

42 

50 





Warrick. 

. 1,900 

33 

40 

Shelby. 

. 2,500 

50 

72 

Wells . 

. 1,900 

31 

38 

Noble. 

. 2,500 

43 

53 





Dearborn ... 

_ 2,500 

27 

31 

Greene. 

. 2,000 

30 

10 

Dekalb .... 

. 2,500 

51 

44 

Putnam. 

.. 2,000 

56 

58 

Gibson.. 

. 2,500 

44 

51 

Shelby. 

. 2,000 

59 

89 

Hendricks ., 

. 2,500 

39 

80 

Miami. 

. 2,000 

57 

83 

Jackson .... 

. 2,500 

31 

88 





Marshall..., 

. 2,500 

21 

8 

Dekalb. 

. 2,100 

25 

28 

Miami. 

. 2,500 

30 

18 

Bartholomew.. . 

,. 2,100 

60 

87 





















































































•99 


AUDITOR. TREASURER. 


County. 

Salary 

Total 



Salary 

Total 


Allowed. 

Pay. 

Fees. 

County. 

Allowed. 

Pay. 

Fees. 





Boone. 

. $2,100 

41 

62 

Bartholomew. . 

.. $2,600 

20 

66 

Dearborn. 

. 2,100 

51 

82 

Greene. 

.. 2,600 

41 

33 

Daviess. 

,. 2,100 

10/ 

11 

Henry. 

.. 2,600 

37 

41 

Gibson. 

. 2,100 

13 

15 

Jefferson.. 

.. 2,600 

40 

48 

Henry. 

. 2,100 

39 

61 

Porter. 

.. 2,600 

18 

47 

Jackson. 

. 2,100 

43 

80 





Jefferson. 

.. 2,100 

50 

56 

Jay. 

. . 2,700 

36 

26 

Marshall. 

. 2,100 

17 

20 





Noble. 

. 2,100 

35 

55 

Boone . 

.. 2,800 

25 

25 

• 




Daviess. 

.. 2,800 

34 

24 

Clinton. 

. 2,200 

23 

27 

Randolph. 

.. 2,800 

33 

79 

Hamilton. 

. 2,200 

28 

26 

Wabash. 

.. 2,800 

32 

39 

Howard. 

. 2,200 

24 

31 





Huntington.... 

. 2,200 

16 

' 8 

Clinton. 

.. 2,900 

24 

42 

Knox. 

. 2,200 

20 

43 

Huntington. .. 

.. 2,900 

* 29 

21 

Kosciusko. 

. 2,200 

32 

19 

Knox. 

.. 2,900 

28 

29 

Montgomery ... 

. 2,200 

21 

25 

Kosciusko. 

.. 2,900 

26 

22 

Randolph. 

. 2,200 

34 

73 

Montgomery .., 

.. 2,900 

17 

37 

Wabash. 

. 2,200 

29 

48 

Clark. 

.. 3,000 

22 

46 

Clark. 

. 2,300 

36 

28 

Clay. 

.. 3,000 

15 

15 

Clay. 

. 2,300 

37 

42 

Floyd. 

.. 3,000 

19 

27 

Floyd. 

. 2,300 

26 

16 

Hamilton.. 

.. 3,000 

16 

74 

Jay. 

. 2,300 

9 

13 

Howard. 

.. 3,000 

23 

12 

Cass. 

. 2,500 

14 

24 

Lake. 

.. 3,200 

13 

3 

Delaware. 

. -2,700 

5 

7 

Cass. 

.. 3,600 

14 

58 

Lake. 

. 2,700 

11 

6 

Delaware. 

.. 3,700 

12 

11 

Grant. 

. 2,800 

6 

9 

Laporte. 

,. 3,700 

11 

16 

Wayne ........ 

. 2,900 

15 

17 

Elk^iart.. 

.. 3,900 

10 

20 

Laporte. 

. 2,900 

18 

60 

Tippecanoe .... 

,. 3,900 

8 

7 

Tippecanoe .... 

. 2,900 

8 

12 

Wayne .. 

. 3,900 

9 

19 

Elkhart. 

. 3,000 

19 

21 

Grant . 

. 4,500 

5 

5 





St. Joseph. 

. 4,600 

7 

6 

St. Joseph. 

. 3,300 

12 

22 

Madison .... .. 

.. 4,800 

6 

4 

Madison. 

. 3,800 

7v 

5 

Vigo. 

. 5,800 

3 

9 

Vigo. 

. 4,300 

2^ 

2 

Vanderburgh... 

,. 6,500 

4 

10 

Allen. 

. 4,800 

4 

18 

Allen. 

. 6,500 

2 

2 

Vanderburgh... 

. 4,800 

3 

3 

Marion. 

. 17,500 

1 

1 

Marion. 

. 11,000 

1 

1 


I, ofC. 


































































100 


DEDUCTIONS P^ROM TABLES. 

The salaries, as fixed by the law of 1891 and 1895, were graded ac¬ 
cording to population, after an arbitrary rule was applied to the four 
least and one most populous county; the former being Ohio, Scott, 
Union and Starke, and the latter Marion. The other essential con¬ 
stitutional requirement, necessary services rendered, was met by mak¬ 
ing the salaries as fixed for the Clerk, Eecorder and Sheriff dependent 
upon the fees collected. The salaries allowed the Auditors, to cover 
necessary services required, were fixed at conjectural figures, while the 
salaries of the IVeasurers, as to matter of services rendered, were in¬ 
creased by giving these officers the delinquent tax fees in addition 
to their salaries as fixed by law. 

It was under such conditions that the salaries have been paid to the 
five county officers as set forth in the tables above, which show the 
amount of collections, and payments of salaries, together with the re¬ 
sources at the command of the Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff to meet 
their salaries. It can be seen at a glance in the table above, relative 
to rank of ofiicers as to payment of salaries, taxation and collection, 
that the inequalities of compensation are numerous and beyond rem¬ 
edy under the present system, or any system of like character. 

These tables further emphasize the existing inequalities of payment 
of salaries when the average payment of the five county, officers is 
taken for each county. An analysis under that rule has produced the 
following results as to rank of counties on the average total payment 
of salaries to Clerk, Sheriff, Recorder, Auditor and Treasurer, com¬ 
pared with the rank of counties as to population, under the census 
of 1890: 


101 




Rank as 



Rank as 


Rank as 

to Pay- 


Rank as 

to Pay¬ 


to Popu- 

ment of 


to Popu¬ 

ment of 

County. 

lation. 

Salaries. 

County. 

lation. 

Salaries. 

Marion. 

1 

1 

Hendricks. 

. 47 

44 

Allen. 


2 

W arrick. 

. 48 

53 

Vanderburgh.... 

3 

3 

Harrison. 

. 49 

69 • 

Vigo. 

_ 4 

4 

Dubois. 

. 50 

66 

St. Joseph. 

5 

8 

Parke. 

. 51 

58 

Elkhart. 


12 

Adams. 

. 52 

59 

Wayne. 

7 

11 

Carroll. 

. 53 

48 

Madison. 

8 

5 

Lawrence. 

. 54 

47 

Tippecanoe . 

. 9 

7 

Johnson. 

. 55 

60 

Laporte. 

_ 10 

22 

Fountain. 

. 56 

46 

Grant . 

. 11 

6 

Ripley. 

. 57 

55 

Cass. 

_ 12 

13 

Decatur. 

. 58 

52 

Clay. 


28 

Rush. 

. 59 

45 

Clark. 

_ 14 

30 

Morgan. 

. 60 

50 

Delaware. 

. 15 

9 

Washington.... 

. 61 

62 

Floyd. 

. 16 

37 

Pike. 

. 62 

74 

Kosciusko. 

. 17 

21 

Franklin. 

. 63 

70 

Randolph. 

. 18 

23 

Perry. 

. 64 

79 

Knox. 

. 19 

19 

Tipton. 

. 65 

41 

Montgomery ... 

. 20 

14 

Porter. 

. 66 

29 

Huntington.... 

. 21 

15 

Hancock. 

... . 67 

65 

Clinton. 

. 22 

27 

Whitley. 

. 68 

67 

Wabash. 

. 23 

18 

Monroe. 

. 69 

61 

Boone . 

. 24 

25 

Fulton. 

. 70 

56 

Daviess. 

. 25 

24 

White. 

. 71 . 

57 

Howard. 

. 26 

20 

Lagrange. 

. 72 

80 

Hamilton. 

. 27 

16 

Owen. 

. 73 

78 

Miami. 

. 28 

42 

Orange . 

. 74 

82 

Shelby. 

. 29 

49 

Jennings. 

. 75 

75 

Gibson. 

. 30 

32 

Steuben. 

. 76 

71 

.Jefferson. 

. 31 

54 

Martin. 

. 77 

73 - 

Greene. 

. 32 

38 

Crawford. 

. 78 

85 

Dekalb. 

. 33 

33 

Vermillion. 

. 79 

72 

Jackson. 

. 34 

31 

F ay ette. 

. 80 

77 

J,alce . 

. 35 

10 

Switzerland.. .. 

. 81 

88 

Henry. 

. 36 

36 

Benton. 

. 82 

84 

Bartholomew... 

.... 37 

43 

Pulaski. 

. 83 

81 

Marshall. 

. 38 

26 

Jasper. 

. 84 

76 

Jay. 

. 39 

17 

Warren. 


83 

Dearborn. 

. 40 

39 

Blackford.. 

. 86 

68 

Noble. 

. 41 

34 

Brown.. 

. 87 

89 

Putnam. 

. 42 

64 

Newton. 

. 88 

86 

Spencer . 

. 43 

63 

Scott. 

. 89 

91 

Sullivan. 

. 44 

40 

Starke. 

. 90 

87 

Posey. 

...'.. 45 

51 

Union. 

. 91 

90 

Wells. 

. 46 

35 

Ohio. 

. 92 

92 




























































































102 


In the group of counties with the least population, Ohio, Scott, 
Union and Starke, it will be observed that the average total payments 
to the five county officers, in the first three counties named, are not 
disturbed, hut the inequality occurs in Starke County, which is ad¬ 
vanced in rank as to payment of salaries to the group of counties where 
the salaries are from two to four hundred dollars more; the officers 
of Starke County, through better collections and necessity of services, 
receiving more than Switzerland and Brown, in which counties the 
salaries are somewhat larger. 

Pursuing the analysis on the basis of Clerks’ salaries it is ascertained 
that payment of salaries on fees collected and out of the treasury places 
Newton, of the second group, just above Starke in the first group of 
counties, and Pulaski, also of the second group, five points above New¬ 
ton, while Benton, of Group 3, is next below Pulaski, with Warren 
preceding it; and Jasper, of the same group, is five points ahead of 
Benton County and ten points above Switzerland, which occurs next 
below Starke. 

Another noticeable inequality is that of Crawford County of the 
fourth group, which is classed, in salary allowed, along with Blackford, 
Martin and Vermillion. This county, in its total payments of salaries 
should rank with Newton, Starke and Switzerland. 

In the fifth group, in which the salaries are still larger than in group 
four, it will he noted that Orange County is fourteen points below 
Blackford of the fourth group, and between Warren of the third group, 
and Pulaski of the second; while Fayette and Jennings, classed with 
Orange under the law, are considerably below Blackford and rank 
along with. Jasper, Benton and Warren of the third group. Pike and 
Perry of the eighth, Lagrange and Owen of the sixth, and Pulaski of 
the second group. 

In the sixth group we find Steuben ten points higher in rank than 
Lagrange, with which it is associated in supposedly equal distribution 
of salaries. In matter of payment of salaries Steuben ranks along with 
Franldin of the seventh group, Whitley of the eighth, Dubois, Han¬ 
cock and Harrison of the ninth, and Putnam and Spencer of the tenth. 

In the seventh group, consisting of Franklin, Fulton and White, 
we find that the two latter are, in the matter of payments, advanced 
eleven points beyond Franklin, and rank with Adams and Parke of the 
ninth, and Johnson and Washington of the tenth group. 

The eighth group, consisting of Perry, Pike and Whitley, has al¬ 
ready been commented upon in connection with Fayette, Jennings 
and Orange of the fifth group, and Steuben of the sixth. 


103 


The next especially noticeable inequality of payment is that of Tip- 
ton County of the ninth group, whose officers have received much 
better compensation than the officers of any other counties with which 
it is classified under the law of 1895. It ranks along with Fountain, 
Hendricks, Lawrence and Sullivan of the tenth group, Eush of the 
eleventh, Bartholomew and Miami of the twelfth. 

Adams, Hancock, Harrison and Parke, classified under the law with 
Tipton, have been referred to in the analysis above, leaving only Car- 
roll and Morgan of the same group to be considered. These two coun¬ 
ties are of almost equal rank in matter of payment of salaries, and 
rank along with Posey, Eipley, Warrick and Lawrence of the tenth 
group, and Jefferson and Shelby of the twelfth. 

The pa 3 rtnent of salaries in Wells County advances it in rank six 
points above the next highest of the group, Ho. 10, and places it along¬ 
side of Dekalb, Gibson, Jackson and Hoble of the twelfth group, and 
Henry of the thirteenth group. 

Passing to the eleventh group, we find Porter County sixteen points 
above the next highest of that group, Eush, ranking along with Mar¬ 
shall of the twelftli, Boone and Daviess of the thirteenth, Clinton and 
Eandolph of the fourteenth, and Clay of the fifteenth. The two other 
counties of Group 11, Decatur and Monroe, belong to the class, in mat¬ 
ter of payment, of Posey and Warrick of the tenth, Jefferson of the 
twelfth, while Eush, classified with Decatur and Monroe, is placed 
with Bartholomew and Miami of the twelfth group, and Hendricks 
and Fountain of the tenth. 

The coimty of the highest rank in the twelfth group, except Mar¬ 
shall, is Jackson, with only a fraction in its favor above that of Gibson, 
the next lowest in rank being Dekalb, two points below, and the next 
Noble, one point below. Between Noble and the next lowest of the 
group, Greene, there is a difference of four points; the lowest county 
of the group being Jefferson, reference to whose rank has already been 
made above in connection with Decatur, Monroe and other counties. 

In Group 13 there is an equality of rank between Boone and 
Daviess, with Jay six points ahead of each, while Henry, which has 
already been considered, is ten points below Boone and Daviess. 

Along with the two last named counties in matter of payment Clin¬ 
ton, Howard, Kosciusko and Eandolph of the fourteenth group, and 
Clay of the fifteenth, and Laporte of the sixteenth can be classed. 
While Jay, classed, in matter of salary allowed, with Boone and Da¬ 
viess, can be placed, as to salary paid, with Huntington, Knox and 
Hamilton of the fourteenth group, and Wabash of the fifteenth. 


104 


Along with Henry of Group 13 is ranked Floyd of Group 15, while 
Clark of Group 14 belongs rightfully, in matter of payment, to the 
class of which Gibson and Jackson are exponents. 

Montgomery, as to payment of salaries, found in Group 15 under 
salary allowed, is four points above the next highest of the group, 
Wabash, and twenty-one points above the lowest, Floyd. It should be 
classed with the larger counties in matter of payment, found in Group 
16, in which the inequalities are less marked than in any other group 
of the system. The order thereof, after eliminating Laporte, which 
has been mentioned heretofore, runs from Marion County, first of the 
group, to Cass County, the lowest. 


VARIATIONS OF PAYMENT. 

It will he serviceable to note the variation of payments to the officers 
in each county. Thus, in Ohio County, which is the lowest in average 
rank as to total payment, the compensation of each officer of the 
county, as to payment of salary, was equal to the average except the 
Sheriff, who is a fraction below. On the other hand, in Scott County, 
the payments were all below the average rank except the Sheriff, who 
was a fraction above. 

In Union County the Clerk, Eecorder and Treasurer were above the 
average, and the Sheriff and Auditor below. 

In Starke County the Clerk, Eecorder and Auditor were above the 
average, and the Sheriff and Treasurer below. 

In Brown County the Sheriff and Auditor and Treasurer were the 
better paid, comparatively, while the Clerk and Eecorder were least 
compensated. On the other hand, in Newton County, of the same 
group, the Clerk, Eecorder and Sheriff were better compensated, pro¬ 
portionately, than the Auditor and Treasurer. 

In Pulaski County the Sheriff and Eecorder advanced the average 
rank of the county, while the Clerk, Auditor and Treasurer, in matter 
of compensation, held it down. 

In Benton County the rank of the county was advanced by the Ee- 
corder’s payment, while the compensation of the Clerk, Sheriff, Audi¬ 
tor and Treasurer was, in comparison, least advantageous. 

In Jasper County the Sheriff and Eecorder were the better com¬ 
pensated. 

In Switzerland County the Sheriff, Eecorder and Auditor. 

In Warren the Clerk, Auditor and Treasurer. 

In Blackford the rank of the county was highest with the Sheriff 
and Eecorder and lowest with Clerk, Auditor and Treasurer. 


105 


In Crawford County the rank was higher only as to the Sheriff and 
Auditor, it being, as regards payment to the Clerk, Eecorder and 
Treasurer, much lower. 

In Martin the payments to Sheriff and Treasurer were the dominat¬ 
ing factors in raising the average rank of the county, while the Clerk, 
Auditor and Eecorder placed the rank below the average. 

The same factors prevailed in like manner in Vermillion County. 

In Group No. 5 the rank^f Fayette was sustained by the payments 
to the Clerk and Treasurer only, and in Orange by payments to the 
Clerk, Auditor and Treasurer. 

In Group No. 6 the payments to Clerk, Eecorder and Auditor of 
Lagrange County prevailed in raising the rank. In Owen the pay¬ 
ments to the Sheriff, Auditor and Treasurer, and in Steuben the pay¬ 
ment to the Sheriff only. 

In Group No. 7 the average rank of Franklin County was advanced 
by payments to the Clerk, Sheriff and Auditor, that of Fulton by pay¬ 
ments to the Clerk, Eecorder and Treasurer, and that of White by pay¬ 
ments to the Sheriff and Treasurer. 

In Group No. 8 the average rank of payments in Perry County was 
sustained by the payments to the Auditor, Treasurer and Eecorder; in 
Pike to the same officers; but in Whitley to the Clerk, Sheriff and 
Eecorder. 

In Group 9 the average rank of Adams County was sustained by pay¬ 
ments to the Sheriff, which specifically in the rank of payment to 
Sheriff advanced the county twenty-six points. In Carroll the Eecor¬ 
der and Treasurer were the dominating factors in this regard, while 
in Dubois they were the Clerk, Auditor, Sheriff and Eecorder; in 
Hancock the Clerk and Eecorder; in Harrison the Auditor and Treas¬ 
urer; in Morgan the Sheriff, Auditor and Treasurer; in Parke the 
Clerk and Sheriff; in Tipton the Sheriff' and Eecorder. 

In Group No. 10 the rank of Fountain County was advanced by the 
Sheriff and Eecorder. In Hendricks by the Sheriff, Auditor and Ee¬ 
corder; in Jackson by the Clerk, Eecorder and Auditor; in Lawrence 
by the Eecorder and Treasurer. In Posey by the Clerk, Auditor and 
Treasurer. In Putnam by the Clerk, Eecorder, Auditor and Treas¬ 
urer. In Eipley by the Sheriff and Eecorder. In Spencer by the Ee¬ 
corder and Treasurer. In Sullivan by the Eecorder, Sheriff and Treas¬ 
urer. In Warrick by the Eecorder, Auditor and Treasurer. In Wash¬ 
ington by the Clerk, Sheriff and Treasurer. In Wells by the Sheriff, 
Eecorder and Treasurer. 

In Group No. 11 the varying ranks of the counties were sustained 
in Decatur by the Clerk and Eecorder. - In Monroe by the Clerk, Ee- 


106 


corder and Auditor. In Porter by the Clerk and Auditor, and in 
Eush by the Clerk and Eecorder. 

In Group No. 12 Bartholomew's rank was supported by the Clerk 
and Auditor; Dearborn^s by the Clerk, Sheriff and Auditor; Dekalb’s 
by the Sheriff, Eecorder and Treasurer; Gibson’s by the Eecorder and 
Treasurer; Greene’s by the Eecorder and Treasurer; Jackson’s by the 
Sheriff, Eecorder and Auditor; Jennings’ by the Clerk, Auditor and 
Treasurer; Miami’s by the Clerk, Eecorder and Auditor; Martin’s by 
the Sheriff, Auditor and Treasurer; Noble’s by the Clerk, Sheriff and 
Treasurer, and Shelby’s by the Clerk. 

In Group No. 13 the varying ranks of the counties were sustained 
as follows: Boone County—Sheriff, Eecorder and Auditor; Daviess 
County—Eecorder and Treasurer; Henry County—Auditor and Ee¬ 
corder; Jay County—Sheriff, Treasurer and Eecorder. 

In Group No. 14 the rank of Clark County was sustained by pay¬ 
ments to the Clerk, Sheriff and Auditor; Clinton County—Clerk, 
Eecorder, Auditor and Treasurer; Hamilton County—Eecorder and 
Auditor; Howard County—Clerk, Eecorder, Auditor and Treasurer; 
Huntington County—Sheriff, Eecorder and Treasurer; Knox County 
—Clerk, Sheriff and Treasurer; Kosciusko County—Clerk and Sheriff; 
Eandolph County—Clerk and Sheriff. 

In Group No. 15: Clay County—Sheriff, Eecorder and Auditor; 
Floyd County—Clerk, Auditor and Treasurer; Montgomery County— 
Clerk, Sheriff and Eecorder; Wabash County—Clerk, Sheriff and 
Eecorder. 

In Group No. 16: Cass County—Clerk, Sheriff, Auditor and Treas¬ 
urer; Delaware County—Eecorder and Treasurer; Laporte County— 
Eecorder, Auditor and Treasurer; Lake County—Sheriff and Ee¬ 
corder; Wayne County—Clerk, Sheriff and Auditor; Elkhart County 
—Clerk, Sheriff, Eecorder and Auditor; Tippecanoe County—Clerk, 
Auditor and Treasurer; Grant County—Sheriff, Eecorder and Audi¬ 
tor; St. Joseph County—Clerk, Eecorder and Auditor; Madison 
County—Sheriff and Eecorder; Vigo County—Clerk, Auditor and 
Treasurer; Allen County—Sheriff and Auditor; Vanderburgh County 
—Clerk, Sheriff and Treasurer; Marion County—Clerk, Auditor, Ee¬ 
corder, Treasurer and Sheriff. 


COUNTY ASSESSOES. 


The Commission's attention was directed by frequent reference of 
those immediately concerned and others having an interest in equita¬ 
ble compensation for all county officers to the services of the County 
Assessors. It was urged upon us tliat this class of officers was illy paid 
for the work they did, as represented in the amount of omitted taxable 
property restored to the duplicate. To enable the General Assembly 
to act with understanding in this matter, the Commission obtained 
from the County Assessors answers to the following questions: 

1. “What are your views relative to the compensation for County Assessors?” 

2. “Do you think a fixed salary rather than a per diem would be the better 
method of payment for services rendered ?” 

3. “What opinions have you concerning fees and salaries of State, county 
and township officers ?” 

4. “What is the average total taxable value of omitted property you add to 
the tax duplicate of your county each year?” 

In this connection the County Auditors were asked what was the 
total pa 3 anent of per diem or salary, including extra allowances and 
deputy hire to the County Assessors, from April 1, 1899, to April 1, 
1900. 

The answers to these questions from sixty of the ninety-two County 
Assessors emphasize the wish among them to have their offices placed 
with the fixed salaried offices. Only sixteen of the sixty replying 
favored a retention of the per diem method of compensating Asses¬ 
sors, and that with an addition of per cent, on the taxable value of all 
property restored to the duplicate above a certain amount. 

There was a wide difference of opinion expressed as to what the 
initial amount should be when the percentage compensation should 
begin to accrue; some desiring a percentage without limiting the value 
of restored property, others placing the limit at $50,000 to $500,000. 

There was also a variance of opinion as to the percentage itself; 
in some instances it being as low as ten per cent., and as high as 
twenty-five per cent. A like sentiment for percentage, in addition to 
salary, was evidenced by many asking for a fixed salary. 

The average taxable value of property restored to the duplicate 
yearly, and the compensation of the County Assessors received there¬ 
for, were reported as follows: 


108 


County. 

Adams. 

Allen. 

Bartholomew. 

Benton. 

Blackford. 

Boone. 

Brown. 

Carroll. 

Cass. 

Clark . 

Clay. 

Clinton. 

Crawford. 

Daviess. 

Dearborn . 

Decatur . 

Dekalb. 

Delaware. 

Dubois. 

Elkhart. 

Fayette. 

Floyd. 

Fountain. 

Franklin. 

Fulton. 

Gibson. 

Grant. 

Greene. 

Hamilton. 

Hancock. 

Harrison. 

Hendricks. 

Henry. 

Howard. 

Huntington. 

Jackson. 

Jasper. 

Jay. 

Jefferson. 

Jennings. 

Johnson. 

Knox. 

Kosciusko. 

Lagrange. 

Lake. 

Laporte. 

Lawrence. 

Madison. 

Marion. 


Average Total Tar able 

Value Restored. Compensation. 


$63,599 

$695.16 

179,228 


30,000 

113.50 

100,000 


From 10,000 to 20,000 

132.00 

100,000 

521.80 

150,000 

1,032.00 

178,772 

903.00 

75,000 

920.00 

120,000 

500.19 


916.00 

1,000,000 

990.00 

47,743 

600.00 

175,000 


129,043 


40,000 

900.00 


800.00 

150,000 

214.05 


30,000 

570.60 

60,000 

640.90 

200,000 

874.50 

117,045 

772.80 

1,500 

740.37 

From 50,000 to 125,000 

540.00 

150,000 

500.00 

112,000 

805.80 

190,950 

621.00 

65,000 

790.00 

75,000 



582.00 

40,000 

525.00 

171,666 

545.00 


591.00 

140,000 

750.00 

From 123,000 to 163,000 



263.80 

300,000 

1,095.00 

From 100,000 to 150,000 

945.21 

400,000 

1,800.00 
















































































109 


Avernge Total Taxable 

County. Value Restored. Compensation. 

Marshall. $125,000 $864.00 

Martin. 30,000 . 

Miami. 100,000 781.00 

Monroe. . . 

Montgomery. 100,000 786.00 

Morgan. 592.00 

Newton. 150,000 339.00 

Noble. 250,000 702 00 

Ohio. 154.10 

Orange. 75,000 . 

Owen.... From 25,000 to 50,000 600.00 

Parke. 805.00 

Perry. From 20,000 to 30,000 546.00 

Pike. 366.35 

Porter. From 10,000 to 15,000 723.24 

Posey. 464.60 

Pulaski. 370.00 

Putnam. 100,000 627.75 

Randolph. 75,000 . 

Ripley. 120,000 . 

Rush. . . 

Scott. 100.00 

Shelby. 633.00 

Spencer. 110,735 600.00 

Starke. 233.20 

Steuben. 126,065 . 

St. Joseph.:. 300,000 720.00 

Sullivan. . . 

Switzerland. 345.00 

Tippecanoe. 465,736 1,019.00 

Tipton. 408.12 

Union. 342.00 

Vanderburgh. 800,000 1,167.00 

Vermillion. From 40,000 to 50,000 454 85 

Vigo. 417,000 1,063.00 

Wabash. 792.00 

Warren. 535.00 

Warrick. . . 

Washington. 260.00 

Wayne. 359,380 853.46 

Wells. 100,000 717.00 

White...,. 50,000 629.40 

Whitley .*. 475.00 


In an analysis of the amonnts given above as compensation to 
County Assessors there will he observed some variation and excess of 
the time limit prescribed by law, for the work of these officers each 
year. The law, previous to amendment approved March 4, 1899, fix- 






































































110 


ing the compensation at ^'$3 per day for time actually employed in the 
duties of his office/^ read: 

‘^Each County Assessor shall receive $3.00 per day for the time actu¬ 
ally employed in the duties of his office, to he paid out of the county 
treasury on order of the Board of County Commissioners on his filing 
therewith an itemized statement duly verified, showing the time actu¬ 
ally employed by him and the nature of his services, provided that in 
countie§ having a population of more than 100,000 the County As¬ 
sessors shall receive $1,800 per annum, to be paid out of the county 
treasury.-’^ 

As to time limit of service each year, the law of 1895 prescribed— 

^^That in counties of less than 10,000 such Assessors shall not charge 
for or receive pay for more than 120 days. In counties of more than 
10,000 and less than 15,000 such Assessors shall not charge or receive 
pay for more than 150 days. In counties of more than 15,000 and less 
than 30,000 such Assessors shall not charge or receive pay for more 
than 180 days. In counties of more than 30,000 and less than 60,000 
the Assessors shall not charge or receive pay for more than 240. In 
counties of more than 60,000 such assessors may, if the duties of the 
office require it, charge and receive pay for the entire year.'’^ 

This section is now ineffective through the amendment mentioned, 
but the payments noted above were made under it. 

The computation of population in these classes was made under the 
law on the eleventh census of the United States of 1890, which per¬ 
mitted the following classification: 

The counties having more than 60,000 population were Allen and 
Marion, whose Assessors could keep their offices open every business 
day in the year; their average service therefore being 313 days. 

The next class under 60,000 and above 30,000 population comprised 
the following counties: Clark, Clay, Delaware, Cass, Laporte, Grant, 
Tippecanoe, Madison, Wayne, Elkhart, St. Joseph, Vigo and Yan- 
derburgh. 

The third class between 15,000 and 30,000 population included La¬ 
grange, Owen, White, Fulton, Hancock, Monroe, Whitley, Franklin, 
Morgan, Perry, Pike, Porter, Tipton, Washington, Floyd, Decatur, 
Johnson, Eipley, Rush, Adams, Lawrence, Fountain, Dubois,'Carroll, 
Harrison, Parke, Hendricks, Posey, Spencer, Bartholomew, Dearborn, 
Henry, Lake, Marshall, Noble, Gibson, Jefferson, Miami, Shelby, Da¬ 
viess, Hamilton, Howard, Knox, Montgomery, Clinton, Wabash, Sulli¬ 
van, Warrick, Wells, Putnam, Jay, Greene, Boone, Kosciusko^, Ran¬ 
dolph, Huntington. 


Ill 


The counties of the fourth class under 15,000 and aboye 10,000 
population were Newton, Blackford, Brown, Warren, Benton, Jasper, 
Pulaski, Fayette, Switzerland, Crawford,, Vermillion, Martin, Jen¬ 
nings, Orange and Steuben. 

In the fifth class under 10,000 population we have Ohio, Scott, 
Starke and Union. 

The aggregate of the amounts paid to the assessors reporting is 
$42,240, or an average of $640 to each. Calculating the same average 
with the twenty-six counties not reporting, we would have an addi¬ 
tional sum of $16,640, or total for the ninety-two of $58,845. The 
total ye^ly compensation to the County Assessors was, under the old 
law, about $60,000. 

Setting aside the counties of the first-class in which the Assessors 
worked throughout the year and were compensated therefor on that 
basis, except in Marion, where the salary is $1,800, we have an average 
of $920 each for the Assessors of the counties of the second class, or 
an average service of 309 days, or 69 days in excess of the limit pre¬ 
scribed by law. 

In counties of the third class there was an average of $637, or an 
average service each year of 202 days, or 22 days in excess of the 
legal limit. 

In counties of the fourth class there has been an average payment 
of $335, or a term of service of 111 days, 40 days less than the limit 
prescribed by law. 

In the fifth class there has been an average payment of $324, or a 
service of 108 days, 12 days less than the limit prescribed by law. 


TOWNSHIP OFFICERS. 


Great complaint was made to the Commission of overpayment to 
township trustees and assessors, strengthened by the demand for a 
total abolition of the per diem method of compensating, not only these 
officers, but all others who are so paid for public service. 

The Commission requested the County Auditors to report to it the 
following: 

^^What was the total payment of per diem, including extra allow¬ 
ances and compensation as overseer of the poor and deputy hire, to the 
trustee of each township in your county for the fiscal year ending June 
JO, 1899 


112 


^^What was the total payment of per diem, including extra allow¬ 
ances and deputy hire to each of the township assessors in your county 
from April 1, 1899, to April 1, 1900?’^ 

From the replies received the total payments, highest and lowest 
thereof, together with the average payment, have been calculated, the 
results appearing in the following tables: 

To assist comparison the counties are grouped according to the 
salaries allowed the County Commissioners, thus showing the relation 
of Trustees^ and Assessors’ compensation to that of the Commissioners. 



Commission¬ 

No. of 

County. 

er's Salary. 

Towns’ps. 

Brown. 

. 1100 

5 

Ohio. 

. 100 

4 

Scott. 

. 100 

5 

Union. 

. 100 

6 

Starke.... 

. 125 

9 

Crawford. 

. 150 

9 

Martin.. 

. 150 


Newton. 

. 150 


Switzerland . . . 

. 175 

6 

Orange . 

. 200 


Vermillion. 

. 2U0 

5 

Dubois. 

. 225 

12 

Jasper. 


13 

Owen. 

. 225 

13 

Benton. 

. 250 


Blackford. 

. 250 

4 

Dekalb. 

. 250 


Lagrange . 

. 250 

11 

Jennings. 

. 250 


Harrison. 


13 

Noble. 

...... 250 

13 

Perry. 

. 250 

7 

Pike. 

. 260 

9 

Steuben. 



Warren. 


12 

Pulaski. 


12 

Washington. ... 

. 275 

13 

White. 

. 275 

11 

Adams. 



Carroll. 

. 300 

13 

Decatur. 


9 

Fayette. 


9 


Paid 


Trustees. 

High. 

Low. 

Average. 

$1,020 

$332 

$175 

$204 

618 

371 

85 

154 

1,296 

384 

190 

259 

1,382 

334 

111 

230 

3,520 

572 

139 

334 

1,748 

257 

129 

194 


2,348 

576 

260 

391 

3,130 

626 

626 

626 

3,126 

454 

202 

260 

2,921 

428 

114 

224 

3,218 

701 

84 

247 


2,159 

197 

118 

196 

5,340 

600 

330 

410 

3,362 

348 

96 

258 

2,850 

606 

283 

407 

4,091 

606 

254 

454 

3,567 

370 

163 

297 

3,965 

550 

190 

330 

2,174 

344 

78 

167 

4,495 

632 

290 

408 

4,914 

780 

242 

378 

4,328 

626 

326 

480 

2,314 

992 

23 

257 


































113 


Commission- No. of Paid 


County. 

er’s Salary. 

Towns’ps. 

Trustees. 

High. 

Low. 

Franklin. 


13 

$3,198 

$397 

$134 

Fulton. 

. 300 

10 

3,984 ■ 

562 

300 

Hancock. 

. 300 

9 

3,331 

542 

236 

Johnson. 

. 300 

9 

4,903 

697 

424 

Marshall.. 

. 300 

10 

4,378 

584 

302 

Porter. 

. 300 

12 

3,966 

588 

172 

Posey. 


10 

4,141 

624 

310 

Ripley. 

. 300 



.... 

.... 

Spencer. 

. 300 

9 

4,887 

626 

370 

Tipton. 

. 300 

6 

3,624 

777 

370 

Warrick. 

. 300 





Wells. 

. 325 

9 

4,529 

648 

342 

Gibson. 

. 325 

9 

4,906 

626 

404 

Monroe. 

. 325 




.... 

Morgan. 

. 325 

14 

4,180 

626 

150 

Whitlev. 

. 350 

10 

2,333 

367 

75 

Sullivan. 




.... 


Bartholomew. .. 

. 350 

14 

4,020 

625 

120 

Boone. 

. 350 


• . • • 


.... 

Daviess. 

. 350 

10 

490 

40 

25 

Dearborn. 

. 350 

14 

4,758 

597 

100 

Greene. 

. 350 


« • . . 

. • . . 


Hamilton. 

. 350 

9 

5,246 

626 

506 

Henrv. 

. 350 

13 

927 

176 

12 

Jackson. 

. 350 

11 

4,314 

480 

298 

Jefferson. 

. 350 

10 

467 

247 

14 

Knox. 

. 350 

10 

4,189 

490 

150 

Lawrence. 

. 350 





Rush. 

. 350 




.... 

Howard. 


11 

3,959 

604 

134 

Miami. 

. 375 

14 

6,315 

788 

130 

Montgomery, .. 

. 375 

11 

4,285 

652 

290 

Randolph. 

. 375 


.... 

.... 

.... 

Clark. 

. 400 

12 

5,264 

1,302 

12 

Clinton. 

. 400 

14 

6,470 

700 

300 

Fountain. 

. 400 



.... 

. • . , 

Hendricks. 

. 400 

12 

5,041 

593 

268 

Jay. 

. 400 



.... 


Parke. 

. 400 

13 

4,655 

610 

207 

Putnam. 

. 400 

14 

3,254 

462 

79 

Shelby. 

. 400 

14 

3,902 

806 

160 

Floyd. 

. 425 


.... 



Kosciusko. 

. 425 

.. 

.... 

.... 


Wabash.. 

. 425 

7 

3,242 

626 

326 

Huntington.... 

. 450 



.... 

.... 


8—F. And S. Com. 


Average. 

$246 

398 

370 

544 

437 

330 

414 

543 

604 


503 

549 

298 

233 

287 

49 

339 

582 

71 

392 

47 

418 


359 

451 

389 


438 

462 

420 

358 

252 

278 


463 















































114 


County. 

Commission¬ 
er's Salary. 

No. oj 
Towns^ps. 

Paid 

Trustees. 

High. 

Low. 

Average. 

Cass. 

. f500 






Clay. 

. 500 

11 

$5,665 

$683 

$84 

515 

Laporte. 

. 500 






Wayne. 

. 500 






Delaware. 

. 600 






Elkhart. 

. 600 

16 

4,764 

710 

88 

297 

Lake. 

. 600 

11 

3,485 

600 

160 

316 

Grant. 

. 700 

13 

6,723 

576 

169 

517 

Tippecanoe .... 

. 700 

13 

5,945 

761 

133 

457 

St. Joseph. 

. 750 

13 

3,938 

1,042 

99 

302 

Vigo. 

. 900 

12 

9,020 

2,000 

500 

751 

Madison. 

. 950 

14 

6,762 

868 

268 

483 

Allen. 

. 1,200 






Vanderburgh .. 

. 1,500 

8 

5,386 

2,340 

372 

735 

Marion. 

. 2,200 






It will be noticed that the average payment to Trustees 

in each 

county of the first group- 

— Brown, Ohio, 

Scott and Union— 

is in ex- 


cess of the salary allowed the County Commissioners. The least ex¬ 
cess being $54, and the highest—in Scott—being $159. The lowest 
payments to the Trustees are also in excess of the salary allowed the 
County Commissioners, except in Ohio County, where the lowest is 
only $15 less. 

Excepting in townships containing a population of over 75,000, as 
shown by the census of 1890, and in townships having a population of 
over 25,000 and less than 75,000, as shown by the same census, to 
each Trustee in the State is allowed the sum of $2.00 per day as ^Tull 
compensation for all services that he shall in any capacity or any man¬ 
ner perform.^^ 

In the first exception noted the Trustee and Assessor each receive 
$2,500 per annum, and in the second exception noted each Trustee 
receives not less than $1,000 or more than $1,500 per annum. Thus, 
computing at $2.00 per diem, we have the average term of service of 
the Trustees in the counties of Brown, Ohio, Scott and Union at 100 
days. 

In Starke County, the only county of the State where the Commis¬ 
sioner receives $125 per year, the average payment to Trustees is $209 
in excess of that amount. The lowest payment being $14 in excess, 
and the average term of service 167 days. 

















116 


In the next group of counties—Crawford, Martin and Newton—in 
which the Commissioners are allowed $150, we have only reports from 
Crawford, where it is shown that the average payment to the Trustees 
is $44 in excess of that allowed the Commissioners, or an average 
service of 65 days. 

In Switzerland County the Trustees are paid on an average $216 
more than the County Commissioner. The lowest payment being $85 
more; the average term of service of the Trustees being 130 days. 

In counties where the Commissioners are allowed $200, Orange and 
Vermillion, we have only a report from Vermillion as a basis of com¬ 
parison, no returns coming from Orange. In Vermillion the five 
Trustees were paid $626 each throughout, or $426 in excess of the 
salary of the Commissioners, the amount paid to each representing 
313 days^ service each year. 

The Commissioners of Dubois, Jasper and Owen are each allowed 
$225, while the average payment to the Trustees in Dubois was $260, 
or $35 in excess of the Commissioners^ allowance. In Jasper it is one 
dollar less, and in Owen $22 more. The average term of services of 
Trustees in these counties being 120 days. 

In the group of counties whose Commissioners receive $250 per 
year is Blackford, the Auditor of which reported as to the total pay¬ 
ments to the Trustees of that county, as follows: ^Tt is impossible 
for me to give this information. The Trustees make their reports 
to the Commission from August, 1898, to April, 1899, and to the 
Township Advisory Board from April, 1899, to September, 1899, and 
some of their reports donT give any dates when the service was per¬ 
formed.'’^ The other counties of the group not reporting were Benton, 
Dekalb and Steuben. Those reporting, as noted in the table above, 
show that in Lagrange County the average payment to Trustees was 
$54 less than the County Commissioners’, and in Harrison $160 more. 
In the other counties the compensation of 'Trustees was in excess of 
that of the Commissioners, as follows: Noble, $8; Perry, $157; Pike, 
$204, and Warren, $47. The average term of service of each county 
being as follows: Lagrange, 98 days; Harrison, 205 days; Noble, 129 
days; Perry, 203 days; Pike, 227 days, and Warren, 148 days. 

In Pulaski, Washington and White, whose Commissioners each re¬ 
ceive $275 the year, we have an excess of average payment to the Trus¬ 
tees, except in Washington County, where it is $108 less than the 
County Commissioners’ allowance. The payment in Pulaski County 
is $55 more and in White $123. The average term of service is 165 
days for Pulaski, 83 days for Washington and 204 days for White. 


116 


In Adams, Carroll, Decatur, Fayette and Franklin, to whose Com¬ 
missioners is allowed $300 each, we have an average excess of pay¬ 
ment to the Trustees of $78 in Carroll and $180 in Decatur, while in 
Fayette $43 less and in Franklin $54 less than the County Commis¬ 
sioners^ salary. The Trustees^ term of service in these counties aver¬ 
age in Carroll County 189 days, Decatur 240 days, Fayette 128 days, 
and Franklin 123 days. 

Of eleven other counties comprising the class whose Commissioners 
each receive $300 salary, Eipley and Warrick alone failed to report. 
The excesses of average payment to Trustees over the Commissioners^ 
salaries occurred in Fulton County where it was $98, Hancock $70, 
Johnson $244, Marshall $137, Porter $30, Posey $114, Spencer $243, 
Tipton $304. The days of service averaged as follows: 'Fulton 199, 
Hancock 185, Johnson 222, Marshall 218, Porter 165, Posey 207, 
Spencer 276, Tipton 302 days. 

In Wells, Gibson, Monroe and Morgan the average payments to the 
Trustees exceeded that of the Commissioners as follows: In Wells, 
$178; Gibson, $224; but in Morgan it was $27 less. The days of 
service averaged in Wells, 256 days; in Gibson, 274 days; in Morgan, 
149 days. 

In counties where the Commissioners are paid $350 each, the aver¬ 
age payment to the Trustees has been less in Whitley County, by $117, 
Bartholomew by $63, Daviess by $351, Dearborn by $11, in Henry by 
$279, in Jefferson by $303, but there was an excess of payment over 
the Commissioners^ salary in Hamilton County of $232, in Jackson 
$42, and in Lawrence $68. The average per diem service of the 
Trustees was: In Whitley County, 116 days; Bartholomew, 143 days; 
Daviess, 25 days; Dearborn, 169 days; Hamilton, 291 days; Henry, 35 
days; Jackson, 196 days; Hamilton, 291 days; Jefferson, 23 days, and 
Knox, 209 days. 

In Howard, Miami, Montgomery and Eandolph, where the Commis¬ 
sioners each receive $375, the Trustees were paid higher in Miami and 
Montgomery and less in Howard, Eandolph not reporting. The excess 
on an average being $76 in Miami and $14 in Montgomery, with $16 
less average payment in Howard. The average days’ service in these 
counties were 179 in Howard, 225 in Miami, 195 in Montgomery. 

In counties where the Commissioners receive $400 each, there 
was an average excess of payment over that sum paid to Township 
Trustees in Clark, $38; in Clinton, $62; in Hendricks, $20, while in 
Parke County the average payment to Trustees was $42 less; in Put¬ 
nam, $168 less; and in Shelby, $122 less. The average days’ service 


117 


of the Trustees was: In Clark, 219; Clinton, 231; Hendricks, 210; 
Parke, 179; Putnam, 116, and in Shelby, 139 days. 

In Floyd, Kosciusko and Wabash the County Commissioners each 
receive $425, but from these counties, as to Trustees, we have had 
reports only from Wabash, which shows the average payment to 
Trustees herein represented to he 231 days^ service and an average 
excess of payment of $38 over the Commissioners^ salary. 

In Clay County where, along with Cass, Laporte and Wayne, the 
Commissioners are allowed $500 each, we find an average payment to 
Trustees of $15 in excess of the Commissioner’s salary, or an average 
service per diem of 207 days. The other counties of the group failed 
to report. 

In the class of counties where the Commissioners are salaried at 
$600 we find a less average payment to the Trustees. Thus, in Elkhart 
$303 less, and in Lake $284 less. The average service being 148 days 
in Elkhart and 158 days in Lake. 

In Grant and Tippecanoe counties the Commissioners are allowed 
each $700. In Grant the average payment to the Trustees was $183 
less, and in Tippecanoe $243 less, with an average of 258 days’ service 
in Grant and 228 in Tippecanoe. In St. Joseph County the payment 
to the Trustees averaging $448 less than the Commissioners’, in 
Vigo $149 less, and in Madison $469 less, and in Vanderburgh $765 
less. The average per diem service in St. Joseph County, outside of 
South Bend, was 51; in Vigo, outside of Terre Haute, 365; in Madison, 
outside of Anderson, 241, and in Vanderburgh, outside of Evansville, 
365 days. 


TOWNSHIP ASSESSOKS. 


The payments to Township Assessors, compared with the salary of 
the County Commissioner in the grouping as followed above, relative 
to Township Trustees, furnishes the following: 



Commission¬ 

No. of 

County. 

er’s Salary. 

Toivns’pi 

Brown. 

. $100 

5 

Ohio. 

. 100 

4 

Scott. 

. 100 

5 

Union. 

. 100 

6 

Starke. 

. 126 

9 

Crawford. 

. 150 

9 

Martin. 

. 150 


Newton. 

. 150 

10 


Paid 


J.sses8ors. 

High. 

Low. 

Average. 

$1,458 

$390 

$240 

$290 

668 

344 

102 

161 

1,360 

364 

152 

272 

1,092 

266 

140 

182 

1,786 

290 

66 

198 

1,405 

243 

99 

156 

1,486 

220 

94 

148 










118 



Commission- 

No. of 

Paid 




County, 

er’s Salary. Toivns’ps. 

.dsse^.sors. 

High. 

Low. 

Average. 

Switzerland... 

. $175 

6 

$1,428 

$448 

$174 

$238 

Orange . 

. 200 


.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Vermillion.... 

. 200 

3 

1,306 

320 

200 

261 

Dubois. 

. 225 

12 

2,341 

313 

136 

195 

Jasper. 

. 225 

13 

2,542 

498 

114 

195 

Owen. 

. 225 

13 

2,350 

350 

120 

180 

Benton. 

. 250 


.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

Blackford. 

. 250 

4 

1,128 

453 

240 

282 

Dekalb. 

. 250 


. . • . 



.... 

Lagrange. 

. 250 

11 

1,619 

240 

120 

147 

Jennings. 

. 250 


.... 


.... 

.... 

Harrison. 

. 250 

13 

3,080 

400 

175 

237 

Noble. 

.. 250 

13 

2,762 

606 

122 

212 

Perry. 

. 250 

7 

2,458 

730 

158 

351 

Pike. 

. 250 

9 

4,091 

606 

254 

454 

Steuben. 

. 250 


• • • • 

.... 



Warren. 

. 250 

12 

2,686 

270 

144 

223 

Pulaski.. 

. 275 

12 

1,600 

194 

120 

133 

Washington... 

. 275 

13 

1,552 

266 

70 

119 

White. 

. 275 

11 

2,918 

360 

180 

265 

Adams. 

. 300 

.. 





Carroll. 

. 300 

13 

2,880 

482 

160 

221 

Decatur. 

. 300 

9 

3,459 

782 

240 

384 

Fayette. 

. 300 

9 

2,510 

894 

144 

278 

Franklin. 

. 300 

13 

2,305 

441 

100 

177 

Fulton. 

. 300 

10 

2,316 

710 

140 

231 

Hancock. 

. 300 

9 

3,134 

974 

190 

348 

Johnson. 

. 300 

9 

3,113 

1,073 

435 

568 

Marshall. 

. 300 

10 

2,895 

568 

210 

289 

Porter. 

. 300 

12 

2,202 

538 

98 

183 

Posey. 

. 300 

10 

3,101 

720 

140 

310 

Ripley. 



• • • • 

.... 



Spencer. 

. 300 

9 

4,069 

960 

264 

452 

Tipton. 


6 

2,428 

716 

240 

404 

Warrick. 



.... 

.... 

• • • • 


Wells.. . 


9 

3,151 

960 

170 

350 

Gibson. 


9 

4,562 

1,290 

200 

507 

Monroe. 






Morgan. 

. 325 

14 

3,152 

504 

75 

225 

Whitley. 

. 350 

10 

2,271 

360 

92 

227 

Sullivan. 






Bartholomew. . 

. 350 

14 

4,119 

1,263 

123 

294 

Boone.. 

. 350 





Daviess... 

. 350 

10 

4,394 

1,680 

198 

439 

Dearborn . 

. 350 

14 

3,188 

522 

106 

227 

Greene. 




















































119 


Commission- No. of Paid 


County. 

er’s Salary. T 

'oims’ps. 

Hsse.s.sors. 

High. 

Low. 

Average. 

Hamilton . 

. $350 

9 

$4,032 

$854 

$280 

$448 

Henry. 


13 

2,000 

220 

100 

153 

Jackson.. 

. 350 

11 

4,255 

1,085 

182 

386 

JefJerson. 

. 350 

10 

3,30o 

1,207 

136 

330 

Knox. 


10 

3,910 

1,358 

240 

391 

Lawrence. 

. 350 






Rush. 






. • • c 

Howard. 

. 400 

11 

4,431 

402 

222 

1,453 

Miami . 


14 

4,720 

1,312 

160 

337 

Montgomery . . 

. 400 

11 

5,348 

2,276 

220 

486 

Randolph . 

. 400 






Clark . 


12 

4,816 

2,404 

134 

401 

Clinton . 


14 

5,080 

750 

240 

362 

Fountain . 

. 400 






Hendricks .... 

. 400 

12 

3,748 

480 

216 

312 

Jay . 







Parke . 

. 400 

13 

3,880 

480 

170 

298 

Putnam . 

. 400 

14 

3,394 

768 

90 

242 

Shelby. 


14 

5,293 

911 

234 

878 

Floyd . 







Kosciusko . 

. 425 






Wabash . 

. 425 

7 

3,324 

895 

365 

474 

Huntington ... 

. 450 






Cass. 

. 500 






Clay. 

. 500 

11 

5,321 

995 

120 

484^’ 

Laporte. 

. 500 






Wavne . 

. 500 






Delaware . 

. 600 






Elkhart . 

. 600 

16 

5,451 

1,595 

101 

340 

Lake . 

. 600 

11 

3,292 

1,177 

147 

299 

Grant . 

. 700 

13 

8,413 

2,936 

214 

647 

Tippecanoe ... 

. 700 

13 

7,457 

2,975 

233 

573 

St. Joseph. . . 

. 750 

13 

6,339 

3,254 

94 

487 

Vigo . 

. 900 

12 

9,430 

6,400 

200 

785 

Madison . 

. 950 

14 

7,631 

208 

140 

545 

Allen. 

. 1,200 





.... 

Vanderburgh.. 

. 1,500 

8 

13,457 

10,446 

300 

1,682 

Marion. 

. 2,200 





.... 


In comparing the payments of Township Assessors with those of 
County Commissioners it is worth while also to take into considera¬ 
tion the payments to the County Assessors of the same counties. ' 
Thus, in Brown, Ohio, Scott and Union, where the County Commis¬ 
sioners are each allowed $100, we find that the average payment to the 







































120 


County Assessors is $184, and to the Township Assessors $226, and an 
average term of work each year, at $2 per day, of 113 days, while the 
average term of work for the County Assessor in the four Counties 
named is 62 days. The average payment to the Township Assessors 
exceeds the payments to the County Commissioners by $126. 

In Starke County the average payment to the Township Assessors 
was $198, representing a term of work of 99 days, the average pay¬ 
ment being in excess of that allowed the County Commissioners $73, 
and $35 less than the average payment to the County Assessor. 

In Crawford and Newton the average payment to the Township 
Assessors was $247, or $97 more than is paid the County Commis¬ 
sioners, or $172 less than the average paid to the County Assessors of 
those counties. 

In Switzerland County we find the average payment to the Town¬ 
ship Assessor $63 in excess of that allowed the County Commissioners 
and $170 less than the payment to the County Assessor; the average 
term of work for the Township Assessors being 119 days, and that of 
the County Assessor 115 days. 

In Vermillion County the payments to the Township Assessors 
averaged $61 more than the payment to the County Commissioners, 
and $193 less than the payment to the County Assessor. The latter 
payment represented 114 days^ work each year, while that of the 
'3k)wnship Assessors averaged 130 daj^s. 

In Dubois, Jasper and Owen the average payment to the Township 
Assessors was $190, being $35 less than the payment to the County 
Commissioners and $465 less than the average payment to the County 
Assessors. 

In Blackford, Lagrange, Harrison, Noble, Pike and Warren 
counties the average payment to the Township Assessors was $272, or 
$22 more than the average payment to the County Commissioners, or 
$174 less than the average pa 3 rment to the County Assessors of those 
counties. The average payment to the County Assessors represented 
149 days of work and the Township Assessors 136 days. 

In Pulaski, Washington and White the Township Assessors have 
been paid on an average $172, or $103 less than the allowance to the 
County Commissioners, or $163 less, on an average, than the payment 
to the County Assessors. The paAonent of the latter represented 111 
days of work, and that of the Township Assessors showed, on an 
average, 86 days of work. 

In counties where the County Commissioners are allowed $300 
each, the Township Assessors, on an average, were paid $20 more, but 
were paid $141 less, on an average, than the County Assessors. The 


121 


average payment to the latter showed 187 days of work, and to the 
Township Assessors 160 days of work. 

In Wells, Gibson and Morgan the average payment to the Township 
Assessors was $360, or $35 more than was paid the County Commis¬ 
sioners, while the average payment to the County Assessors was $727, 
or $360 in excess of that paid the Township Assessors; the payment 
to the latter representing 180 days^ work and to the County Assessors 
262 days^ work. 

In counties where the Commissioners are allowed $350, the Town¬ 
ship Assessors, on an average, were paid $30 less and $381 less than 
the County Assessors, the work of the latter, on an average, amounting 
to 233 days, and of the Township Assessors 160 days. 

In Howard, Miami and Montgomery the average payment to the 
Township Assessors was $725, or $350 more than the County Commis¬ 
sioners, or $6 less than the average paid the County Assessor. 

In counties where the County Commissioners are allowed $400, the 
Township Assessors have been paid, on an average, $68 less, but $466 
less than the County Assessors; the work of the latter being, on an 
average, 269 days, and of the Township Assessors 166 days. 

In Wabash County the average payment to the Township Assessors 
was $49 more than to the County Commissioner, and $318 less than 
the salary paid the County Assessors; the days of work of the County 
Assessor averaging 266 days, and of the Township Assessors 237 days. 

In Clay County the average payment to the Township Assessors was 
$16 less than the payment to the County Commissioners, and $419 
less than the payment to the County Assessor, the work of the latter 
being, on an average, 301 days, and of the Township Assessors, 242 
days. 

In Elkhart and Lake counties the average payment to the Township 
Assessors was $281 less than to the County Commissioners, and $628 
less than to the County Assessors, the average work of the latter being 
312 days, and of the Township Assessors 159 days. 

In Grant and Tippecanoe counties the average payment to the 
Township Assessors was $90 less than to the County Commissioners 
and $285 less than to the County Assessors, the work of the latter 
averaging 298 days, and of the Township Assessors 303 days. 

In St. Joseph, Vigo, Madison, Allen, Vanderburgh and Marion, 
where the County Commissioners’ salaries vary from $750 to $2,200, 
the average paid the Township Assessors is about equal to the average 
paid the County Commissioners; the average payment to the two 
classes of Assessors representing, practioaly, work for every day in 
the year. 


V. 


PER DIEM AND ALLOWANCES. 


Under the laws of 1891 and 1895 the distribution and fixing of 
salaries for county ofiicers was made with a design of having the 
various amounts paid out of fees, especially the salaUes of Clerks, 
Sheriffs and Recorders, which were made contingent upon fees alone. 
The resources of fees in the Auditor’s office-, however, being small, the 
larger part of the salary was to be paid out of the county fund, along 
with the full salary of the Treas-urer, which was different from all 
other methods of compensation, as a whole, in the fact that he was al¬ 
lowed the delinquent tax fees. Notwithstanding the fact that he sal¬ 
aries of Clerks, Recorders and Sheriffs were made contingent upon 
fees, large sums have been paid out of the county fund to these officers 
in addition on claims for allowances, extra work, per diem and other 
elements of compensation. This brought the Commission to a con¬ 
sideration of the amounts paid out of the county fund in addition to 
fees, always bearing in mind that the salary of the Auditor, as a whole, 
was practically paid out of the county fund. 

The Commission sought from the Auditors information on this line, 
as answers to the following questions: 

^Trom March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, what amounts, in addition 
to fees, were paid out of the County Treasury to your County Clerk, 
Auditor, Recorder, Treasurer and Sheriff?’^ 

The answers were not entirely satisfactory, but sufficient was 
received to indicate fairly the averages so paid. Thus, for example, 
from some of the counties replies were received that no payments were 
made to the County Clerks out of the county fund in addition to fees. 
This could not be, as per diem and allowances were regularly claimed 
and allowed to the Clerk of each county, and the pa 3 Tnent could come 
from no other fund but that of the county fund. Where answers were 
thus lacking an estimate has been made by the Commission upon the 
number of days of court, as given in the tables of the State Statis¬ 
tician, the estimates being so indicated to distinguish them from the 
sums returned by the County Auditors. 


- 122 - 



123 


The same rule was adopted regarding the Sheriffs as to whom 
Auditors returned that they received no compensation outside of their 
fees. It is known that they claimed their per diem and payment for 
hoard of prisoners and turnkeys^ fees and other incidentals. 

As to the Treasurer, the amounts given show full payment out of 
the county fund, irrespective of fees. 

Replies were received from fifty-nine counties, leaving estimates to 
he made upon thirty-three, as follows: 


Allen. 

Howard. 

Rush. 

Bartholomew. 

•lefiferson. 

Spencer. 

Cass. 

Jennings. 

Starke. 

Crawford. 

Lagrange. 

St. Joseph. 

Daviess. 

Martin. 

Sullivan. 

Delaware. 

Monroe. 

Switzerland. 

Elkhart. 

Newton. 

Vermillion. 

Fountain. 

Ohio. 

Warren. 

Fulton. 

Pulaski. 

Warrick. 

Grant. 

Putnam. 

Washington. 

Greene. 

Randolph. 

White. 


For convenience of comparison the same grouping, followed in the 
tables above, based upon the Clerks^ salaries, has been maintained in 
this connection showing the relation of extra payment to the salary 
allowed by law. 

• It should be borne in mind, however, that as there has been no 
uniform observance relating to per diem, some officers retaining it 
in addition to their salary, others paying it into the Treasury and 
drawing it back on salary, that this element of resource always enters 
into the figures here given covering payments out of the county fund. 

The averages were taken for one year. 


GROUP 1. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff". 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Oh in . 

r220 

$282 


$1,028 

$900* 

Soott . . 

250 

422 


1,026 

821 

p|-}H7*ke . 

300 

500 


966 

896* 

Union. 

103 

306 

$70 

1,119 

1,020 

Total. 

$873 

$1,510 

$70 

$4,139 

$3,637 


^Estimated. 
















GROUP 2. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Brown. 

$149 

$350 

$800 

$1,200 

$1,100 

Npwtnn . 

100 

500 


1,260 

1,000* 

Pulaski. 

160 

500 


1,215 

1,200* 

Total. 

$409 

$1,350 

$800 

$3,675 

$3,300 



GROUP 3.. 




County, 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Benton. 

$200 

$800 

$10 

$1,385 

$1,352 

Jasper. 

no 

644 

. 

1,135 

1,245 

Switzerland. 

130 

555 


1,600 

1,400* 

Warren. 

200 

500 


1,500 

1,300* 

Total. 

$640 

$2,499 

$10 

$5,620 

$5,297 



GROUP 4. 




County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Blackford. 

$372 

$1,047 

$50 

$1,657 

$1,360 

Crawford. 

100 

500 


1,550 

1,400* 

Martin. 

175 

600 


1,490 

1,400* 

Vermillion. 

150 

400 

520 

1,475 

1,400* 

Total. 

$797 

$2,547 

$570 

$6,172 

$5,560 



GROUP 5. 




County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

F ayette. 

$258 

$1,131 


$1,796 

$1,640 

Jennings. 

250 

500 


1,710 

1,500* 

Orange . 

118 

1,230 


1,700 

1,560 

Total. 

$626 

$2,861 


$5,206 

$4,700 



GROUP 6. 




County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Lagrange . 

$200 

$700 


$1,700 

$1,500* 

Owen. 

300 

650 


1,760 

1,560 

Steuben. 

180 

400 


1,660 

1,560 

Total. 

$680 

$1,750 


$5,120 

$4,620 


GROUP 7. 




County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Franklin. 

$230 

$1,431 


$2,145 

$1,620 

Fulton. 

200 

750 


2 364 

1 600* 

White. 

300 

800 


1,600 

1,600* 





Total. $730 $2,981 . $6,109 $4,820 


♦Estimated. 












































































125 


GROUP 8. 


Countij. 

Perry.. 

Pike. 

Whitley. 

Total... 


County. 

Adams.. 

Carroll. 

Dubois.. 

Hancock. 

Harrison. 

Morgan. 

Parke... 

Tipton. 

Total... 


County. 

Fountain. 

Hendricks ,. . , 

.Johnson. 

Lawrence .. . ., 

Posey. 

Putnam. 

Ripley. 

Spencer. 

Sullivan. 

Warrick. 

Washington.., 
Wells. 


Total 


County. 

Decatur. 

Monroe. 

Porter.. 

Rush. 


Total 


Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

$129 

$600 

$86 

$1,600 

$1,760 

192 

912 


1,979 

1,760* 

200 

750 


1,910 

1,760 

$521 

$2,262 

$86 

$5,489 

$5,280 


GROUP 9. 


Clerk. 

Sheriff. Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

$500 

$1,319 . 

$1,910 

$1,760 

240 

1,300 . 

2,260 

1,760 

421 

1,874 . 

2,020 

1,760 

400 

934 . 

1,900 

1,800 

112 

400 . 

1,960 

1,860 

750 

800 . 

2,365 

1,860 

277 

1,636 . 

2,360 

1,800 

360 

1,200 . 

1,917 

1,800 

$3,060 

$9,463 . 

$16,692 

$14,400 


GROUP 10. 


Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer 

$300 

$950 


$2,175 

$1,900* 

400 

843 


2,440 

1,960 

500 

2,284 


2,501 

1,900 

325 

1,000 


2,040 

1,960 

300 

2,112 


2,170 

1,960 

300 

1,500 


2,200 

2,000- 

350 

700 

$135 

2,371 

1,870 

100 

700 


2,050 

1,900* 

400 

1,000 


2,050 

1,900* 

350 

600 


2,350 

1,900* 

400 

800 


1,940 

1,700* 

980 

1,200 

13 

2,145 

1,960* 

$4,705 

$13,689 

$148 

$26,432 

$22,910 


GROUP 11. 


Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer 

$522 

$2,457 


$2,330 

$1,960 

250 

2,000 


2,250 

1,800* 

843 

2,251 

$37 

2,847 

2,028 

300 

1,000 

68 

2,240 

1,900* 

$1,915 

$7,708 

$105 

$9,667 

$7,688 


Estimated. 











































































126 


GROUP 12. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Bartholomew. 

$336 

$1,600 

$50 

$2,865 

$2,100* 

Dearborn. 

606 

1,922 


2,576 

2,160 

Dekalb. 

500 

900 


2,150 

2,100 

Gibson. 

250 

1,624 


2,260 

2,160 

Greene. 

250 

1,000 


2,200 

2,000* 

Jackson. 

600 

COO 


2,725 

2,160 

J efferson. 

500 

1,500 

150 

2,300 

2,100* 

Miami. 

700 

3,949 

100 

2,340 

2,020 

Marshall. 

300 

1,000 


2,163 

2,100 

Noble. 

150 

1,000 


2,260 

2,160 

Shelby. 

500 

1,600 

100 

2,400 

2,000 

Total.. 

$4,692 

$16,695 

$400 

$26,239 

$23,060 


GROUP 13. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Boone. 

$444 

$1,364 

$180 

$2,490 

$2,160 

Daviess. 

300 

1,000 

25 

2,300 

2,100* 

Henry.^... .. 

300 

1,250 

175 

2,325 

2,160 

Jav. 

700 

1,240 


2,600 

2,300 




Total. 

$1,744 

$4,854 

$380 

$9;715 

$8,720 


GROUP 14. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Clark . 

$200 

$2,500 

. 

$2,730 

$2,360 

Clinton. 

663 

2,243 

$425 

2,675 

2,260 

Hamilton. 

459 

1,835' 

9 

3,160 

2,260 

Howard. 

1,000 

1,100 

75 

2,380 

2,200* 

Huntington. 

600 

1,200 


2,450 

2,200 

Knox. 

500 

1,900 


2,560 

2,500 

Kosciusko. 

450 

1,000 

100 

2,485 

2,260 

Randolph. 

340 

1,000 


2,400 

2,200* 

Total. 

$4,212 

$12,778 

$609 

$20,840 

$18,240 


GROUP 15. 





County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Clay. 

$360 

$2,192 

$240 

$3,000 

$2,360 

Floyd. 

737 

3,810 


2,670 

2 490 

Montgomery. 

680 

5,281 


2,900 

2,260 

Wabash. 

404 

1,420 


2,400 

2,200 




Total. 

$2,181 

$12,703 

$240 

$10,970 

$9,240 


Estimated. 

































































GROUP 16. 


County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Cass. 


$2,200 

$100 

$3,460 

$2,560* 

Delaware. 

500 

2,850 


3,010 

2,760» 

Laporte. 

600 

1,000 


3,310 

1,960 

Lake. 

1,043 

3,789 

335 

1,680 

2,862 

Wayne. 

400 

3,863 


3,410 

2,960 

Elkhart.-. 

500 

1,100 


3,410 

3,060* 

Tippecanoe . 

1,120 

4,865 

410 

3,660 

2,960 

Grant... 


5,032 


5,061 

2,860* 

St. Joseph. 

300 

2,800 

3,100 

3,710 

3,360* 

Madison. 

1,100 

3,323 


3,643 

3,843 

Vigo. 


10,451 

473 

6,461 

4,360 

Allen. 

3,718 

3,452 

250 

9,787 

5.420* 

Vanderburgh. 

1,000 

10,565 

305 

6,337 

4,860 

Total. 

$13,871 

$55,290 

$4,973 

$56,939 

$44,825 

County. 

Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Marion. 

$4,544 

$11,371 


$12,700 

$11,000 


The principal sources of revenue in extra payment are as follows: 

^^The Clerk attending court in person, or by deputy, shall re¬ 
ceive, for each day the court is actually in session, $2/' 

^^All fees for services rendered by the Clerk, which by this act are 
made payable out of the County Treasury and are not payable by the 
order of the court, in connection with his report of Clerk^s costs into 
the Count}^ Treasury, shall he presented in itemized and verified writ¬ 
ten accounts, to the Board of County Commissioners at any of their 
sessions, who shall duly audit the same, and being found correct, enter 
an order of allowance thereof in the proper record, and the Auditor 
shall draw his warrant for payment thereof from the County 
Treasury.” 

^^All other fees for services rendered by the Clerk, which by this act 
are made payable out of the County Treasury, by order of the Court, 
shall he presented in itemized and verified written or printed accounts 
to the Judge of the respective Court, who shall audit the same, and, 
being correct, order payment thereof. Such order of payment shall be 
entered on the order book, and shall specify the total amount so 
allowed, and such account, with the order of payment indorsed thereon 
by the judge and filed with the Auditor of the county, shall be suffi¬ 
cient authority to such Auditor to draw his warrant for the payment 
thereof on the County Treasury.” 


’"Estimated. 






























128 


FOR THE SHERIFF. 

every person committed to jail, to be paid by the county, 
twenty-five cents.'’^ 

^Tor discharging each prisoner from jail, to be paid by the county, 
twenty-five cents.'’^ 

‘^‘^The Sheriff shall appoint as many bailiffs at each term of the 
Court as the business of the Court and Grand Jury shall require, under 
the advice and consent of the Judge of the Court as to the number re¬ 
quired. The pay of the court bailiffs shall be fixed by ihe Court, and 
shall not exceed, to be paid by the county, per day, 

“For boarding each person lawfully in his charge, per day, forty 
cents. 

“For collecting fee bills, except for his o^vn fees, on the amounts col¬ 
lected, 6 per cent.^^ 

“For taking a prisoner to another county on any warrant issued by 
the Clerk, the same compensation as allowed for taking a prisoner to 
the State prison, to be paid by the county recjuiring the service, to be 
allowed by the Court.^^ 

“For each commitment or discharge of a prisoner under the author¬ 
ity of any city or incorporated town, to be paid by such city or town, 
twenty cents.” 

“For attending Court, in person or by deputy, for-each actual day’s 
attendance, to be paid by the county, $2.” 

In addition the Sheriff retains as his own fees for services done for 
other counties. 

Under the varying constructions of these paragraphs relating to 
allowances for certain services have arisen the causes of inequality in 
county officers’ salaries; the Sheriffs and Clerks of many counties 
acting under the paragraphs relating to per diem, and, in some cases, 
allowances as well, and in a few cases of Sheriffs as to turnkey fees pay 
these amounts into the Treasury and draw them back on salary, ac¬ 
counting them as fees taxed and fees collected. In other counties 
this rule is not observed, and in a few counties either the Clerk or 
Sheriff retains his per diem and allowances in addition to his fees col¬ 
lected under salary, or one pays them into the Treasury and draws 
them out on salary, while the other does not, in the same county. 

It is also to be obsen^ed that in many counties the Sheriffs cover 
their deputy hire by the allowance made to bailiffs, or appointing 
bailiffs under the advice and consent of the Court, retain them, after 
Court has adjourned, as deputies, or during the session of Court utilize 
them as deputies as well as bailiffs. 


129 


WHAT IS DONP] WITH <PER DIEM. 

The Commission asked the Auditors, in order to ascertain what is 
done with per diem, as it relates to salary fixed by law, the following 
question: 

^^Do the Clerk and Sheriff pay their per diem into the Treasury as 
fees collected and draw it out on salar}'’?^^ 

This rule is observed affirmatively in the following counties: 


Adams. 

Harrison. 

Orange. 

Brown. 

Hendricks. 

Owen. 

Boone. 

Henry. 

Parke. 

Clark. 

Huntington. 

Posey. 

Clay.^ 

Jackson.! 

Ripley. 

Clinton. 

Jay. 

Shelby. 

Dearborn.! 

Knox. 

Steuben. 

Decatur. 

Kosciusko. 

Scott. 

Dekalb. 

Lawrence.? 

Tipton. 

Dubois.! 

Madison.? 

Union. 

Fayette. 

Marion. 

Wabash. 

Floyd. 

Marshall. 

Wayne. 

Hamilton. 

Morgan. 

Whitley. 

Hancock. 

Noble. 



Counties where the per diem and allowances are retained by the 
Clerk and Sheriff as additional compensation: 


Benton. 

Blackford. 

Carroll. 

Dubois. II 

Jasper. 

Jackson.il 

Johnson. 


Lake. 

Laporte. 

Lawrence.^ 

Miami. 

Montgomery. 

Orange. 

Perry. 


Pike. 

Porter. 

Tippecanoe. 

Vanderburgh, 

Vigo. 

Wells. 


DEFICIENCY IN SALARY. 

During the progress of this examination of the county officers the 
Commission was asked by on'e of the Clerks whether a deficiency in 
his salary could be paid out of the surplus of his predecessor, the 
question arising under these circumstances: 


♦Since the first of January, 1900. 

tDecided in April, 1900, that per diem and allowances belonged to the Clerk and Sheriff. 
tOnly as to Sheriff. 
gOnly as to Clerk. 

IIAs to Clerk. 

IfAs to Sheriff. 


9—F. AND S. Com. 



130 


The predecessor, on going ont of office, settled in full with his 
County Commissioners for all claims of salary and other money due 
him and left a surplus in the Clerk^s fund of $1,000. The first month^s 
service of his successor terminated at the beginning of the first quar¬ 
ter, in December, 1899, at which time he presented to the Board of 
County Commissioners a bill for salar}^ amounting proportionately to 
$225. Under his own taxation, beginning with November 1 that year, 
he had collected but $125, leaving a deficiency, in proportion to month¬ 
ly salary, of $100. This, he claimed, should be paid out of the surplus 
mentioned, but the County Commissioners denied it. The question 
was referred by the Fee and Salary Commission to the Attorney-Gen¬ 
eral, who decided that the Clerk could be paid only under his own tax¬ 
ation and collection, thus sustaining the Commissioners of the county 
in question. 

Following this suggestion the State Fee and Salary Commission 
asked the Auditors of the State this question: 

^^At the expiration of an officers term, if there is a deficiency in 
the salary of the Clerk, Eecorder and Sheriff, is that deficiency made 
up out of whatever surplus may have been collected by their predeces¬ 
sors? Or, in other words, is the salary of Clerk, Sheriff and Eecorder 
payable only out of the collections by the incumbent 

The answers received were as follows: 


Adams.First question, “No.’’ Second, “Yes.” 

Benton.Paid out of their own collection and not their predecessor. 

Blackford.No answer. 

Brown.This is the method now employed, I believe. 

Boone.Fir^t question, “No.” Second, “Yes.” 

Clark.Only paid out of fees collected by incumbent. 

Carroll.The Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff are paid only out of fees col¬ 

lected by themselves. 

Clay.No, they are compelled to make their salaries, for if an officer 

has a surplus on surrendering his office it is transferred to 
the general fund. 

Clinton.Paid only out of collections by incumbent. 

Dearborn.Payable only out of collections by incumbent. 

Decatur.Only payable out of collections by incumbent. 

Dekalb.“Yes.” 

Dubois.The salary of Clerk, Sherifi'and Recorder is payable only out 

of fees collected by themselves or successors. 

Fayette.No answer. 

Floyd.Each officer only receives what he himself collects. 

Franklin.No officer has made his amount of salary, consequently, no 

surplus. 

Gibson.No, payable only out of fees earned by himself. 



















131 


Hamilton.Each Clerk, Kecorder and Sheriff makes his own salary by the 

fees charged and collected. Any deficiency is not made 
out of predecessor’s surplus. 

Hancock.The officers are allowed the fees taxed during their term of 

office up to the amount of their salaries. 

Harrison.Last question, “Yes.” 

Hendricks.No answer. 

Henry.Salaries of the Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff are payable only 

out of their collections. 

Huntington.Only from collections by incumbent. 

Jasper.There has been no such deficiency in this county. 

Jackson.We have never had a deficiency, therefore, no occasion to draw 

on the surplus. 

Jay.Above condition has not existed in this county. The officers 

named turn in more than enough fees to pay their salaries. 

Johnson.Payable out of their own fees. 

Knox.Any surplus at Ithe end of the year goes to the general or 

county fund for redistribution. 

Kosciusko.Payable only out of collections of incumbent. 

Lake.First question, “Yes.” Second, “No.” 

Laporte. No surplus. 

Lawrence.If a deficiency exists at expiration of term that deficiency is 

paid to former officer when fees are collected. 

Madison.No answer. 

Marion.Salaries are paid out of fees earned during term of office and 

collected by incumbent and his successors. 

Marshall.PTrst question, “Yes and No.” Second, “Yes.” 

Miami.I do not think there has been such deficiency in this county; 

the collections are amply sufficient to pay salaries. 

Montgomery.Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff have each turned in more in fees 

than salaries, but ex-Sheriff had to have present incumbent 
collect for him. 

Morgan.First question, “It is not.” Second, “It is.” 

Noble.Payable out of collection of incumbent. 

Orange.No answer. 

Owen.Yes. 

Parke.Payable out of fees made by themselves only. 

Perry.Yes. 

Pike.Payable out of collections of incumbent. 

Porter.This matter has not come up in this county, as only one officer 

has gone out of office who depended upon his fees to meet 
salary. 

Posey.t.Salary paid out of collections by the incumbent. 

Ripley. They retain all fees which just about reaches their salaries. 

Shelby.First question, “No.” Second, “Yes.” 

Steuben.There is no allowance made to any officer under the fee system 

until he has earned the fees himself. When the fees exceed 
his salary the surplus is turned into the county treasury. 

Scott.There is a deficiency each year and so far nothing has been 

paid except to the officer earning the fees. 

Tippecanoe.We have never had a deficiency in any of the above offices. 




































132 


Tipton.Salary only payable out of collections by incumbent. 

Union .Yes. 

Vanderburgh.Salary is only paid out of fees earned by the incumbent. 

Vigo.Salary has been paid out of any fees taxed during the term 

which may be collected by incumbent, or afterwards by suc¬ 
cessor. 

Wabash.Paid only out of collections by the incumbent. 

Wayne.In case of Clerk and Recorder there has never been a defi¬ 

ciency. Surplus of Sheriflf’s fees have been credited to suc¬ 
cessor in office. 

Wells...Payable only out of collections by the incumbent. 

Whitley.Answer to first question, “Yes, and if that is not sufficient 

their successors’ collections of fees due are applied to said 
deficiency.” 


THE SURPLUS AND ITS DISPOSITION. 

As being closely related tO' the above examination as to payment in 
deficiency of salaries, the Commission inquired as to surplus of fees 
existing in each fund. The question being: 

^^What surplus was there December 1, 1899, in the Clerk^s fund. 
Auditor's fund, Eecorders fund. Treasurer’s fund and the Sheriff’s 
fund?” 

Followed by the following question: 

^Tf there is a surplus arising on predecessor’s collections for the 
Clerk’s, Recorder’s and Sheriff’s funds, and it is not applied to making 
up whatever deficiencies • that may occur in the salaries of the suc¬ 
ceeding Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff, what disposition is made of it?” 

The replies were as follows: 

ADAMS COUNTY FUNDS. 


Turned into the county revenue— Surplus. 

Clerk. $835 50 

Auditor... 

Recorder .. . 867 71 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $1,703 21 


BENTON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. $1,052 01 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. . 


Total 


$1,062 01 























133 


BLACKFORD COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in funds— Surplus. 

Clerk. $9,166 37 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 4,763 25 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 2,103 19 

Total. $16,032 81 

BROWN COUNTY FUNDS. 

No surplus. 

BOONE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in funds— 

Clerk. $1,573 05 

Auditor. 82 55 

Recorder. 1,569 06 

Treasurer.. 

Sheriff...'. 644 30 

Total. $3,868 96 

CLARK COUNTY FUNDS. 

All fees transferred to county revenue. 

CARROLL COUNTY FUNDS. 

Paid into county revenue— 

Clerk. $936 50 

Auditor.. 

Recorder. 1,201 23 

Treasurer. ' 

Sheriff. 

Total. $2,137 73 

■ The Auditor pays his fees collected into the county revenue at each report. 

CLAY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Transferred to county revenue— 

Clerk.. 

Auditor. $2,705 56 

Recorder. 476 86 

Treasurer. .... 

Sheriff....' 13 05 

Total. $3,195 46 






























134 


CLINTON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Lays in county treasury— Surplus. 

Clerk. $5,491 32 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 4,253 78 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.%. 

Total. $9,745 10 

DEARBORN COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk.*.. $603 50 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 106 49 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $709 99 

DECATUR COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $835 71 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 141 14 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $976 85 

/ 

DEKALB COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk.,. $2,015 43 

Auditor. 706 80 

Recorder. 1,569 85 

Treasurer.. 

Sheriff.. 582 04 

Total. $4,874 12 

DUBOIS COUNTY FUNDS. 

Transferred into the county revenue— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. $1,592 85 

. Recorder . 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $1,592 85 





































135 


FAYETTE COUNTY FUNDS. 


No disposition— Surplus. 

Clerk. $67 89 

Auditor. 166 15 

Recorder. 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $234 04 


FLOYD COUNTY FUNDS. 

Deposited in county revenue — 

Clerk. $1,207 01 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total.*.. $1,207 01 


FRANKLIN COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in fund— 

Clerk . 

Auditor. $435 50 

Recorder. 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total.'... $435 50 

The Auditor reported that this surplus would remain in the fund, holding 
that the money belongs to him, and he thinks it will be so decided some time. 

GIBSON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Goes to the general county fund 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $2,108 21 


$767 51 
1,340 70 


HAMILTON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk.. $993 86 

Auditor. 

Recorder... 2,982 86 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 


Total 


$3,976 72 





































136 


HANCOCK COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— Surplus. 

Clerk. $3,528 31 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 2,463 90 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $5,992 21 

HENDRICKS COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in county fund— 

Clerk;. $495 97 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 551 85 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

' Total. $1,047 82 

HENRY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk. $1,462 26 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 814 40 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $2,276 66 

HUNTINGTON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county fund— 

Clerk. $1,186 00 

Auditor. 

Recorder. * 781 00 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 453 00 

Total. $2,420 00 

JASPER COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk.•. $1,193 89 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 6^455 52 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 920 87 

Total. 18,570 58 





































137 


JACKSON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Carried along and not used— Surplus. 

Clerk. $1,771 25 

Auditor. 277 85 

Recorder. 1,748 29 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 1^832 66 

Total. $5,630 05 

JAY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $1,057 78 

Auditor., 2,265 10 

Recorder. 1,163 30 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 113 45 

Total . $4,599 63 

JOHNSON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— Surplus. 

Clerk. 

Auditor. $95 45 

Recorder. 122 93 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.;. 

Total. $218 38 

KNOX COUNTY FUNDS. 

“We keep the fund,” the Auditor reported, “as officer’s salary, as they 
usually run $1,000 to $1,500 each above their salary.” 

Question 2. It will now revert to the county revenue for reappropriation. 

KOSCIUSKO COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $2,201 24 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 3,185 35 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $5,386 59 





























138 


LAKE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in county revenue— ' Surplus. 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. $2,228 31 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.;. 

Total. $2,228 31 

LAPORTE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in county revenue— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. $577 95 

Recorder. 

Treasurer.'. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $577 95 

LAWRENCE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk. $1,071 69 

Auditor. 187 50 

Recorder. 277 80 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $1,536 99 

MADISON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk. $14,560 94 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 9,278 20 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 4,874 31 

Total. $28,713 45 

MARION COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk. $21,529 46 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 6,332 75 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. . 997 79 

Total. $28,862 00 





































139 


MARSHALL COUNTY FUNDS. 


Turned into county fund— Surpliis. 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. $720 21 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.t. 

Total. $720 21 


MIAMI COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue — 

Clerk. $5,524 07 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 2,554 95 

Treasurer.'. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $8,079 02 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— 

Clerk. $1,233 76 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 892 40 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 88 30 

Total. $2,114 46 


MORGAN COUNTY FUNDS. 

In this county the moneys derived from officers’ fees are not kept separate, 
but turned into the county fund at the expiration of each term of office. 

ORANGE COUNTY FUNDS. 

The out-going Clerk of this county made a little more than his salary and 
that was turned into the county revenue. The Sheriff and Recorder have not 
made their salaries and they receive only the fees they make. 

OWEN COUNTY FUNDS. 

No surplus; but would be turned into the county revenue. 

PARKE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. $283 85 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 


Total 


$283 85 



























140 


PERRY COUNTY FUNDS. 

There never was a surplus in any office in this county. 

PIKE COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into county revenue— . Surplus. 

Clerk.. 

Auditor... 

Recorder. $600 00 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $600 00 

PORTER COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in county revenue— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. 

Recorder. $405 00 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $405 00 

POSEY COUNTY FUNDS. : 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $1,258 12 

Auditor.. 

Recorder.. .•. 

Treasurer.:.. 

Sheriff. 

Total. $1,258 12 

RIPLEY COUNTY FUNDS. • 

The Auditor reported that there were no surpluses in the offices of this county. 

* ( 

SHELBY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $840 82 

Auditor.. 

Recorder. 319 07 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff (unable to state on account of missing records)... 

Total. $ 1,159 89 





























141 


TIPPECANOE COUNTY FUNDS. 


Turned into the county revenue— Surplus. 

Clerk. $8,616 16 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 4,576 29 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 370 38 


Total. $13,562 83 


TIPTON COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $549 29 

Auditor. 

Recorder. 363 05 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.•. 

Total. $912 34 


UNION COUNTY FUNDS. 

The Auditor reported that the officers of this county did not make their sal¬ 
aries. 

VANDERBURGH COUNTY FUNDS. 

The Auditor reported no surplus since 1894. 

VIGO COUNTY FUNDS. 

No disposition— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. $414 20 

Recorder. 3,964 49 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff. 5,459 39 

Total. $9,838 08 


WABASH COUNTY FUNDS. 

Turned into the county revenue— 

Clerk. $2,773 98 

Auditor. 

Recorder...... 3,061 79 

Treasurer. . 

Sheriff. 


Total 


$5,835 77 





























142 


WAYNE COUNTY FUNDS. 


Turned into the county revenue— Surplus. 

Clerk. 35522 50 

Auditor. 495 35 

Kecorder. 735 95 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total.;. $1,753 80 

WELLS COUNTY FUNDS. 

Remains in county fund— 

Clerk. $5,474 97 

Auditor... 1,487 15 

Recorder. 567 35 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 

Total. $7,529 47 


WHITLEY COUNTY FUNDS. 

Transferred to other funds— 

Clerk. 

Auditor. $413 55 

Recorder. 287 82 

Treasurer. 

Sheriff.. 242 06 

Total. $943 43 

The fifty-five counties showing a surplus in these exhibits have, in 

the aggregate, yearly, a salary allowance of $678,400 for the five 
officers named, the aggregate of their quarterly surplus of fees, as has 
been set forth in detail, reaching $211,806.79, or 31.2 per cent, of the 
yearly salary allowance. The average surplus of each county report¬ 
ing is $3,832; assuming a like average for each of the counties not 
reporting, we have for them a total surplus of $141,784, or a total for 
the State of $326,590, the total salary allowance of the five officers 
named in the ninety-two counties being $1,009,000 yearly, or a total 
quarterly allowance of $252,250. This quarterly allowance is $74,340 
less than the surplus appearing for the quarter beginning December 1, 
1899; or, in other words, the quarterly allowance of salary due on that 
date was more than covered in the aggregate by the surplus accruing 
from the collection of fees. 




















143 


It is the opinion of the Commission that by a diligent collection of 
fees the salaries of the Clerks^ Eecorders and Sheriffs can not only be 
paid out of fees, including a 10 per cent, commission for collection, hut 
a sufficient surplus can he obtained to pay as well the salaries of the 
Auditor and Treasurer. This w^ould permit the establishment of a 
system of revenue and expenditure that would leave very little burden 
upon the general fund of the counties, if collection of fees were dili¬ 
gently pursued. 

For this reason the Commission would urge the payment of all fees 
into the county fund, irrespective of salary, and the payment of all 
salaries out of the county fund, irrespective of fees. 


RANK AS TO SALARIES AND COLLECTIONS. 


It is believed by the Commission that under the present system of 
making the salaries of the Clerks, Sheriffs and Recorders contingent 
upon fees, that not only in collection, but in taxation, the rule leads 
to neglect in one case and in the other to collection barely sufficient to 
cover the salary allowed. As illustrative of this we compare the coun¬ 
ties as to rank of salary allowed, salary paid, collection and taxation. 

Thus, in the group of four counties whose Clerks have the lowest 
allowance of salary, Ohio, Scott, Union and Starke, we find the fol¬ 
lowing: 

CLERK. 

GROUP 1. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Rank. 

Salary Paid. 

Rank. 

Taxation. 

Rank. 

Collection. 

Ohio. 

. ... $1,000 

92 

91 

92 

Scott. 

. 1,000 

90 

80 

90 

Union. 

. 1,000 

91 

90 

91 

Starke . 

. 1,000 

88 

79 

83 


GROUP 2. 

In the next group where tlie salaries of the Clerks are as follows, we 
find Brown, in matter of salary paid, taking rank with Ohio, Union 
and Scott, replacing Starke in the matter of salary paid. We present 
the following: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid, lazation. Collec'ion. 

Brown. $1,200 89 88 87 

Newton. 1,300 83 80 81 

Pulaski. 1,400 82 58 69 









144 


In this group we find a comparative equality of rank in matter of 
resources and payment of salary in Brown and Newton counties, but 
Pulaski, where the salary is only $100 more than in Newton and $200 
more than in Brown, we find, while ranking with those counties in 
matter of salary paid, it is 12 points higher in collection and 22 
points higher in taxation than Newton, and 30 points higher in taxa¬ 
tion and 18 points higher in collection than Brown. 

GROUP 3. 

In the next group of counties the Clerks receive $1,500 each, as 


follows: 

County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Benton. $1,500 81 84 78 

Jasper. 1,500 80 69 65 

Switzerland. 1,500 84 92 86 

Warren . 1,500 86 76 82 


In this group we have an excess of $500 over the lowest salary, 
but in point of taxation Switzerland takes the lowest rank, 92. 

GROUP 4. 

In the next group we have $600 excess over the lowest salary, as 


follows: 

County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Blackford. $1,600 75 25 20 

Crawford. 1,600 87 84 86 

Martin. 1,600 78 80 76 

Vermillion. 1,600 76 67 67 


The noticeable variation in this group occurs in taxation and col¬ 
lection of Blackford County, which far exceed the rank of the other 
counties of the group and place the county along with those whose 
Clerks receive a salary of $1,000 or $1,200 more. 

GROUP 5. 

The counties whose Clerks receive $1,700 salary show the following 


rank: 

County, Salary Allou'ed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Fayette. $1,700 67 64 66 

Jennings. 1,700 85 81 80 

Orange. 1,700 74 63 73 


Here are three counties whose salaries are equal, hut there occurs, 
in salary paid, a difference of seven points in rank in favor of Fayette 













145 


over the next highest, Orange, and a diherence of eighteen points over 
the lowest; hut Fayette, as to taxation, has a favor of only one point 
above Orange and seventeen points above that of Jennings, while; as 
to collection, the points in favor of Fayette above Orange and Jen¬ 
nings are eight and fifteen respectively. 


GROUP 0. 

The next highest salary allowed the Clerk is $1,800, paid in the fol¬ 
lowing counties: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Lagrange. $1,800 73 62 72 

Owen. 1,800 79 76 'lb 

Steuben. 1,800 69 65 53 


The variation as to salary paid favors Steuben County, which has 
four points above Lagrange and ten points above Owen; but as to taxa¬ 
tion, the ditference in rank is but fourteen points in favor of La- 
gi’ange, whose taxation places it eleven points higher in rank than 
salary paid, while Owen and Steuben have eleven and two points re¬ 
spectively in their favor as to taxation, compared with salary paid. 

Referring to collection, it is found that Lagrange is but one point 
lower than its salary paid, while Owen is four points lower and Steu¬ 
ben sixteen points higher. 


GROUP 7. 

In the next group of counties $1,900 is allowed to each of the 
Clerks, as follows: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Franklin. $1,900 59 74 58 

Fulton. 1,900 66 66 57 

White. 1,900 65 59 50 


In this group there are but six points variation in rank between 
the highest and lowest as to salary paid, but relative to' taxation the 
ditference in rank is 15 points between White and Franklin and 7 
between White and Fulton. White ranks second of the three as to 
salary paid, taking the highest as to taxation, and Franklin, which is 
the highest as to salary paid, taking the lowest rank as to taxation. 

Referring to rank as to collections it will be observed tliat White 
has the highest and Franklin the lowest, the variations as to points 
being but eight, there being but one point difference between Franklin 
and Fulton counties. 


10— F. AND S. Com. 








GROUP 8. 


The Clerks of the following counties receive $2,000 salary: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Perry. $2,000 77 73 74 

Pike. 2,000 72 69 71 

Whitley. 2,000 61 85 88 


In the above group there is a variation of 16 points between Whit¬ 
ley, ranking the highest, and Perry, ranking the lowest, and only five 
points difference between Pike and Perry as to salary paid, but as to 
taxation Pike takes the higher rank and Whitley the lower, there be¬ 
ing a difference of 16 points, while between Pike and Perry there is 
a difference of only four points. 

In matter of collection Pike still maintains the relative position as 
set out in regard to taxation, there being a difference of 16 points in 
favor of Pike, while there is a difference in favor of that county, as 
compared with Perry, of only three points. 

The Clerks of these counties each receive double the amount allowed 
the Clerks in Group No. 1—Ohio, Scott, Union and Starke. 

Comparing their rank with the county in the first group having the 
lowest rank as to salary paid, we have only 15 points in favor of Perry, 

20 in favor of Pike and 31 in favor of Whitley. 

As to taxation. Pike is 23 points higher. Perry 19 and Whitley 
only 7. 

The relative difference as to collection being 18 in favor of Perry, 

21 in favor of Pike and only four in favor of Whitley. 

Comparing them with Starke County as to salary paid there are 11 
points in favor of Perry, 27 in favor of Whitley, and 16 in favor of 
Pike; but as to taxation. Perry has but six points in its favor, while 
Pike has 10, and Whitley drops six points lower than Starke. 

The comparison as to collection shows a difference of nine points for 
Perry as compared with Starke, 12 points for Pike, while Whitley 
drops five points. 





147 


GROUP 9. 


Observing these comparisons, greater variations are found in the 
next group of counties. The Clerks are allowed just $100 more than 
the Clerks of the counties of the preceding group, as follows: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Adams. $2,100 58 34 44 

Carroll. 2,100 57 66 84 

Dubois. 2,100 60 89 89 

Hancock. 2,100 56 44 40 

Harrison. 2,100 70 71 79 

Morgan. 2,100 55 56 40 

Parke. 2,100 54 54 55 

Tipton. 2,100 53 39 42 


As to salar}^ paid, the county of the highest rank is Tipton, and the 
lowest Harrison, the difference in points being 17. The next lowest is 
Dubois, with its rank of 60, giving seven points in favor of Tipton, 
the other counties maintaining a relation of fair equality to each other. 

The highest rank of taxation belongs to Adams, and the lowest to 
Dubois, the difference being 55 points. The difference in rank between 
Adams County and the lowest, Dubois, being 52 points, with only five 
points difference between Adams and the county of the next highest 
rank, Tipton. 

As to collection, Morgan has the highest rank and Dubois the low¬ 
est, the difference being 49 points. The difference between Morgan 
and Carroll, the county of the next lowest rank, being 44 points. 
Parke County alone shows an equality in rank, in salary paid, taxation 
and collection. 

Morgan County has only a variation of five points between salary 
paid and collection, and one point between salary paid and taxation, 
and 16 points between taxation and collection, while the variation be¬ 
tween salary paid and collection in Dubois is 29 points, and in Carroll 
27 points. 

Comparing the counties of the lowest rank in this group with the 
rank of Ohio County, we find in salary paid, 22 points in favor of Har¬ 
rison, and from 21 to 13 points as to taxation and collection. Dubois 
County, compared with Ohio, shows a difference of 32 points in mat¬ 
ter of salary paid in its favor, and only three points in matter of taxa¬ 
tion and collection. 










148 


GROUP 10. 


Each of the Clerks 
tional, as follows: 

in this group 

of counties is 

allowed $100 addi- 

County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Fountain. 

$2,200 

50 

52 

62 

Hendricks. 

2,200 

68 

51 

61 

Johnson. 

2,200 

49 

35 

52 

Lawrence. 

2,200 

48 

48 

43 

Posey.. 

2,200 

47 

50 

38 

Putnam. 

2,200 

71 

61 

70 

Ripley. 

2,200 

64 

38 

63 

Spencer. 

2,200 

62 

58 

59 

Sullivan. 

2,200 

46 

45 

41 

Warrick. 

2,200 

63 

72 

60 

Washington. 

2,200 

44 

82 

51 

Wells. 

2,200 

45 

7 

14 


While Washington ranks highest as to salary paid, it loses 38 points 
in taxation witli a loss of only seven in collection. Putnam, with the 
lowest rank as to salary ]3aid, gains 10 points in taxation, and hut one 
point in collection. The difference between that county and Washing¬ 
ton being 27 points in favor of the latter as to salary paid, 21 in favor 
as to taxation and 19 in favor of Washington as to collection. 

It will be noted that between Fountain, Johnson, Lawrence, Posey 
and Sullivan a slight variation is maintained as to salary paid, but this 
comparative equality of rank is lost in taxation, the variations cover¬ 
ing a range of 17 points, while the difference in collection is covered 
by a range of 24 points. 

As to taxation it is shown that the variation extends from Wells, 
the highest in rank, to Washington, the lowest, covering 75 points. 
The same comparison of the county of the next highest rank, J ohnson, 
and Washington, the lowest, gives a difference of 47 points. 

As to collection. Wells maintains the first rank, while Putnam re¬ 
places Washington in the lowest order, the difference between that 
county and Wells being 56 points, and between Putnam and the sec¬ 
ond in rank, Posey, 32 points. 


GROUP 11. 


In the class of Clerks receiving $2,300 are those of the following 
counties: 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Decatur. 

. $2,300 

43 

19 

24 

Monroe. 

. 2,300 

52 

70 

74 

Porter. 

. 2,300 

15 

28 

33 

Rush. 

. 2,300 

11 

16 

18 


















149 


There is a difterence as to salary paid between Rush County, of the 
highest rank, and Monroe of the lowest, of 41 points, and between 
Monroe and the county of the next highest rank. Porter, 37 points, 
and between Rush and Decatur, the latter being second lowest in rank, 
32 points, and between Porter and Decatur a difference of 28 points; 
but as to taxation, Decatur gains 24 points, Monroe loses 18 points. 
Porter loses 13 points, and Rush loses five points. 

In matter of collection, Decatur gains 19 points as compared with 
salary paid, Monroe loses 22 points, and Porter 18 points, and Rush 
seven points. 


GROUP 12. 


The rank of the counties where the Clerks are paid $2,400 each 
with the comparison of taxation, collection and sala.ry paid, is as 
follows: 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Bartholomew. 

. $2,400 

38 

53 

35 

Dearborn. 

. 2,400 

39 

27 

27 

Dekalb. 


40 

29 

36 

Gibson.. 

. 2,400 

37 

33 

39 

Greene. 

. 2,400 

51 

' 25 

59 

Jackson. 


36 

40 

26 

Jefferson. 

. 2,400 

27 

55 

36 

Miami. 

2,400 

33 

20 

15 

Marshall. 

. 2,400 

35 

77 

32 

Noble. 

. 2,400 

34 

60 

45 

Shelby. 

. 2,400 

32 

31 

29 


The rank of these counties as to salary paid show a noticeable regu¬ 
larity when considered along with other groups, except between the 
county of the highest rank, Jefferson, and Greene, the lowest, the dif¬ 
ference being 24 points in favor of the former. But when the 
rank of taxation is considered we find the relative positions of the 
counties materially changed. Miami, replacing Jefferson, has the 
highest rank; and ]\Iarshall, replacing Greene, has the lowest, Greene 
taking position as the next highest. 

The difference between the county of the highest rank, Miami, and 
that of the lowest, Marshall, is 57 points, showing a remarkable varia¬ 
tion as to taxation in the 11 counties. 

In the matter of collection, Greene takes its place as the lowest in 
rank, while Miami retains its place as the highest. There is not much 
change in the position of Dekalb, which is the second lowest in collec¬ 
tion and as to salary paid. Its position in taxation being fourth in 
rank of the group. 













GROUP 13. 


The variations of rank in the class of Clerks receiving $2,600 are 
as follows: 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Tamtion. Collection. 

Boone. $2,600 31 19 28 

Daviess. 2,600 30 42 37 

Henry. 2,600 29 30, 23 

Jay. 2,600 28 12 17 


The regularity of rank as to salary paid is so apparent in this group 
that it needs no comment, hut looking at the rank as to taxation it is 
found that the positions change considerably. It is ohservahle that Jay 
retains its first rank of the group as to all three elements, salary paid, 
taxation and collection. Henry holds second place in the group as to 
salary paid and collection, but becomes third in taxation. Daviess 
County is lowest as to taxation and collection, hut third as to salary 
paid, while Boone County, second in taxation, is lowest as to salary 
paid, and third as to collection. 


GROUP 14. 

The counties in which the Clerks are allowed $2,700 each, with the 
comparisons as noted above, are as follows: 


County Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Clark. $2,700 25 9 8 

Clinton. 2,700 24 52 23 

Hamilton. 2,700 23 46 22 

Howard. 2,700 22 43 34 

Huntington. 2,700 21 21 19 

Knox. 2,700 20 14 21 

Kosciusko . 2,700 19 47 35 

Randolph. 2,700 18 24 32 


In this group Clark County, with the lowest rank as to salary paid, 
heads the list as to taxation and collection, while the highest as to 
salary paid is Eandolph, it is fourth as to taxation and sixth as to col¬ 
lection. The difference hetween it and Clark as to taxation and col¬ 
lection being covered by 15 points in one instance and 24 points in the 
other. Knox County maintains a fair position throughout, while the 
variations of rank in the other counties of the group are somewhat 
maTked. 














151 


GROUP 15. 

The counties in which the Clerks are allowed $2,800 each are as fol¬ 
lows, with their comparisons: 


County. Salary Alloioed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Clav. $2,800 42 49 49 

Floyd. 2,800 26 36 30 

Montgomery. 2,800 16 10 9 

Wabash. 2,800 17 22 16 


The highest rank in this group, as to salary paid, belongs to Mont¬ 
gomery, between which, and the county of the lowest rank, Clay, there 
is a difference of 26 points, while the difference between Montgomery 
and the next lowest, Floyd, is 10 points. 

As to taxation, Montgomery still retains the first rank, while Clay 
remains in the lowest, the difference being 39 points. 

In collection Montgomery is still first, with Clay remaining the low¬ 
est, the difference being 40 points. The next highest and lowest as to 
taxation and collection are Wabash and Floyd, the difference between 
them being 14 points in both instances. 

GROUP 16. 


In the counties of the final group the salaries range from $3,500 to 
$19,500, the latter being allowed the Clerk of Marion County. 

The allowances, with their comparisons in rank, are as follows: 


County. 

Salary Alloioed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Cass. 

. $3,500 

43 

42 

47 

Delaware. 

. 3,500 

12 

13 

IS 

Laporte. 

. 3,500 

41 

37 

48 

Lake. 

. 3,600 

14 

26 

25 

Wayne. 

. 3,700 

10 

7 

12 

Elkhart. 

. 3,800 

9 

11 

11 

Tippecanoe. 

. 3,900 

8 

15 

7 

Grant. 

. 4,200 

6 

5 

5 

St. Joseph.. .. 

. 4,400 

7 

6 

10 

Madison. 

. 4,800 

5 

3 

2 

Vigo. 

. 5,600 

4 

2 

6 

Allen. 

. 6,300 

3 

8 

3 

Vanderburgh. 

. 6,300 

2 

4 

4 

Marion. 

. 19,500 

1 

1 

1 


In this general group Marion County is the highest with its $19,500 
salary as to salary paid, and Laporte the lowest, the difference between 
them being 40 points, while the difference between the next highest 
and lowest, Vanderburgh and Lake respectively, is but 12 points. 




















152 


These figures indicate a very wide variation as to salary paid, the rela¬ 
tive positions being lessened hut little as to taxation, in which, of 
course, Marion is the highest as well as in collection, while Cass, the 
lowest in taxation, is 41 points below Marion. The difference between 
the next highest and lowest in taxation being 35 points, as appears in 
the respective rank of Vigo and Laporte. 

As to collection, Laporte again takes the lowest rank, showing a dif¬ 
ference of 46 points between it and Marion. 

The difference between the next highest and lowest, Madison and 
Cass respectively, is 45 points. 

Comparing the rank of these counties receiving the highest salary 
with those of the lowest, we have an extreme variation between Ohio 
and Marion of 91 points as to salary paid, and 90 points between that 
of Ohio and the next highest, Vanderburgh; while the counties of the 
lowest rank in the group, compared with the lowest in the general list, 
show only 51 points as to salary paid, and 50 points as to taxation, as 
compared with Cass, and 44 points in matter of collection as compared 
with Laporte. 


SHEEIFF. 

It has been found that the salary allowed, salary paid, fees taxed and 
fees collected, relative to Sheriffs, vary so much, that in the matter of 
rank there is but little equality either in comparisons of Sheriffs^ sal¬ 
aries and resources with each other or with the Clerks. The diversity, 
when there should be equality, maintained throughout is so great that 
it is only necessary to present the following tables of rank to show 
wherein the Sheriffs of counties, whose Clerks more than make their 
salaries, fall far behind their salaries. 

Thus, we have of Sheriffs—salary allowed, salary paid, and re¬ 
sources—the following: 

GROUP 1. 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Scott. $1,000 92 89 90 

Union. 1,000 89 91 89 

Ohio. 1,000 91 92 92 

GROUP 2. 

County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Starke. $1,100 77 69 73 

Brown. 1,200 88 88 88 

Newton. 1,300 78 78 76 








153 


GROUP 3. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Jasper. 


60 

75 

86 

Pulaski. 

. 1,400' 

66 

59 

59 



GROUP 

4. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Benton. 

. $1,500 

80 

74 

78 

Switzerland. 

. 1,500 

86 

87 

84 

W arren. 

. 1,500 

74 

66 

69 



GROUP 

5. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Blackford. 

. $1,600 

50 

27 

25 

Crawford. 

. 1,600 

73 

77 

70 

Fayette. 

. 1,600 

82 

82 

80 

Martin... 

. 1,600 

56 

47 

54 

Vermillion. 

. 1,600 

51 

38 

44 



GROUP 

6. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Jennings. 

. $1,700 

72 

76 

71 

Lagrange. 

. 1,700 

84 

86 

82 

Orange. 

. 1,700 

85 

46 

83 

Steuben. 

. 1,700 

46 

55 

45 



GROUP 

7. 



County. 

Salary Alloived. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Owen. 

. $1,800 

68 

81 

64 

White. 

. 1,800 

42 

28 

39 



GROUP 

8. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Dubois. 

. $1,900 

58 

43 

56 

Franklin. 

. 1,900 

52 

58 

49 

Fulton. 

. 1,900 

35 

32 

35 

Morgan. 

. 1,900 

49 

49 

48 

Perry. 

. 1,900 

90 

90 

91 • 

Pike. 

. 1,900 

83 

83 

81 

Whitley. 

. 1,900 

61 

51 

58 

























GROUP 9. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Rush. .. 

. $2,000 

63 

61 

61 

Washington. 

. 2,000 

54 

63 

52 

Tipton. 

. 2,000 

43 

40 

41 

Adams. 

. 2,000 

33 

31 

27 

Carroll. 

. 2,000 

40 

53 

40 

Decatur. 

. 2,000 

62 

64 

60 

Fountain .. . 

. 2,000 

36 

39 

33 

Hancock. 

. 2,000 

76 

70 

75 

Harrison. 

. 2,000 

79 

72 

77 

Johnson . 

. 2,000 

87 

84 

87 

Monroe. 

. 2,000 

65 

68 

63 

Parke. 

. 2,000 

44 

45 

37 

Ripley. 

. 2,000 

37 

42 

42 


GROUP 

10. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Porter. 

. $2,100 

34 

73 

85 

Hendricks. 

. 2,100 

29 

25 

28 

Lawrence. 

. 2,100 

70 

85 

67 

Posey. 

. 2,100 

71 

80 

68 

Putnam. 

. 2,100 

69 

60 

66 

Spencer. 

. 2,100 

81 

57 

79 

Sullivan. 

^,100 

30 ' 

35 

29 

Warrick. 

. 2,100 

67 

54 

65 

Wells. 

. 2,100 

28 

52 

51 


GROUP 

11. 



County. 

\ 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Bartholomew. 

. $2,200 

57 

48 

55 

Dearborn. 

. 2,200 

25 

20 

23 

Greene. 

. 2,200 

47 

26 

46 

Henry. 

. 2,200 

59 

50 

57 

Marshall. 

. 2,200 

24 

16 

17 

Noble. 

. 2,200 

26 

65 

74 


GROUP 12. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Dekalb. 

. $2,300 

32 

41 

32 

Jackson. 

. 2,300 

23 

24 

' 21 

Jefferson. 

. 2,300 

75 

79 

72 

Miami. 

_ 2,300 

64 

67 

62 

Shelby. .., 

. 2,300 

55 

30 

53 



































GROUP 13. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Boone . 

. $2,400 

19 

9 

11 

Daviess.. 

. 2,400 

41 

62 

38 

Gibson. 

. 2,400 

45 

22 

43 

Jay. 


20 

18 

13 


GROUP 

14. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Floyd. 

. $2,500 

48 

37 

47 

Hamilton. 

. 2,500 

21 

21 

22 

Knox. 

. 2,500 

17 

6 

19 

Kosciusko. 

. 2,500 

22 

34 

24 

Randolph. 

. 2,500 

18 

19 

20 


GROUP 

15. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Clark. 

. $2,600 

15 

13 

14 

Clay... 

. 2,600 

27 

36 

26 

Clinton. 

. 2,600 

53 

71 

50 

Howard. 

. 2,600 

38 

44 

34 

Huntington. 

. 2,600 

14 

8 

16 

Wabash. 

. 2,600 

16 

29 

31 



GROUP 

16. 



County. 

Salary Allaived. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Cass. 

. $2,800 

34 

23 

30 

Montgomery. 

. 2,800 

12 

33 

18 


GROUP 

17. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Delaware. 

. $3,000 

11 

12 

7 

Lake. 

. 3,000 

7 

11 

8 

Tippecanoe. 

. 3,000 

9 

17 

6 


GROUP 

18. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Laporte. 

. $3,200 

39 

66 

36 

Wayne. 

. 3,200 

10 

15 

10 
























156 


- GROUP 19. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Elkhart. 

. $3,800 

8 

10 

12 

Grant. 

. 3,600 

5 

5 

4 

St. Joseph. 

. 3,900 

13 

. 14 

15 

Madison. 

. 4,600 

4 

4 

5 

Vigo. 

. 5,300 

6 

7 

9 

Vanderburgh. 

. 6,000 

3 

3 

2 

Allen... 

. 6,200 

2 

. 2 

3 

Marion. 

. 13,000 

1 

1 

1 


EECOEDEE. 

Eelative to Eecorders, following the same rule applied to Clerks and 
Sheriffs as to salary allowed, salary paid, fees taxed and fees collected, 
we have the following tables in comparison of rank: 


GROUP 1. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Scott. 

. $700 

89 

89 

90 

Starke . 

. 700 

85 

70 

68 

Union. 

. 700 

91 

91 

91 


GROUP 

2. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Brown. 

. $800 

90 

90 

89 

Ohio. 

. 800 

92 

92 

92 


GROUP 

3. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Newton. 

. $900 

81 

56 

52 


GROUP 

4. 



County. 

Salary Alloived. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Switzerland. 


87 

88 

87 

Vermillion. 


77 

76 

76 


GROUP 5. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Jasper. 

. $1,100 

70 

31 

30 

Pulaski. 

. 1,100 

71 

43 

43 

Benton. 

. 1,100 

72 

64 

61 

Crawford. 

. 1,100 

83 

83 

82 

Martin. 

. 1,100 

78 

80 

80 

Fayette. 

. 1,100 

86 

86 

86 

Jennings. 

. 1,100 

80 

79 

79 

Lagrange.. 

. 1,100 

73 

69 

69 

Orange . 

. 1,100 

82 

84 

83 

Steuben. 

. 1,100 

74 

87 

85 

Owen. 

. 1,100 

88 

82 

88 
































GROUP 6. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Warren . 


65 

65 

66 

Franklin. 

. 1,200 

84 

85 

84 

Fulton. 

. 1,200 

63 

51 

50 

Harrison. 

. 1,200 

66 

66 

65 

Morgan. 

. 1,200 

64 

63 

62 

Perry. 

. 1,200 

76 

78 

78 

Pike. 


69 

75 

75 


GROUP 7. 


County. Salary Allowed. Salary Paid. Taxation. Collection. 

Adams. $1,300 57 50 49 

Dubois. 1,300 61 73 71 

Parke.... 1,300 58 61 58 

White. 1,300 56 21 21 

Whitley. 1,300 59 68 67 



GROUP 

8. 



County. 

Salary Alloived. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Bartholomew. 

. $1,400 

53 

54 

64 

Blackford. 

. 1,400 

41 

36 

35 

Carroll. 

. 1,400 

47 

47 

47 

Dearborn. 

. 1,400 

62 ' 

72 

72 

Decatur. 

. 1,400 

51 

57 

60 

Hancock. 

. 1,400 

44 

45 

44 

Hendricks. 

. 1,400 

40 

34 

34 

Johnson. 

. 1,400 

48 

52 

54 

Marshall. 

. 1,400 

39 

30 

28 

Miami. 

. 1,400 

38 

25 

25 

Monroe.. 

. 1,400 

49 

53 

51 

Noble. 

. 1,400 

43 

42 

42 

Posey. 

. 1,400 

68 

44 

74 

Putnam. 

. 1,400 

53 

62 

55 

Ripley. 

. 1,400 

60 

71 

70 

Rush.. 

. 1,400 

45 

48 

46 

Shelby. 

. 1,400 

52 

60 

59 

Spencer.. 

. 1,400 

50 

58 

57 

Sullivan.. 

. 1,400 

42 

40 

39 

Warrick. 

. 1,400 

46 

49 

48 

Washington.. 

. 1,400 

75 

77 

77 




































GROUP 9. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Dekalb. 

. $1,500 

30 

22 

22 

Fountain. 

. 1,500 

34 

39 

38 

Greene. 

. 1,500 

31 

28 

26 

Jackson. 

. 1,500 

33 

38 

41 

Jefferson. 

. 1,500 

67 

74 

73 

Lawrence. 

. 1,500 

37 

59 

56 

Porter. 

. 1,500 

36 

55 

53 

Randolph.. 

. 1,500 

29 

16 

15 

Tipton. 

. 1,500 

32 

37 

37 

Wells. 

. 1,500 

35 

41 

40 



GROUP 

10. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Gibson. 

. $1,600 

28 

27 

33 

Knox. 

. 1,600 

27 

26 

27 

Kosciusko. 

. 1,600 

25 

10 

10 

Montgomery. 

. 1,600 

26 

24 

24 


GROUP 

11. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Boone.. 

. $1,700 

23 

33 

32 

Clark. 

.. .. 1,700 

54 

67 

63 

Clay. 

. 1,700 

24 

46 

43 

Daviess.. 

. 1,700 

21 

20 

20 

Floyd. 

. 1,700 

79 

81 

81 

Henry. 

. 1,700 

22 

32 

31 


GROUP 

12. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Clinton. 

. $1,800 

19 

18 

17 

Huntington. 

. 1,800 

20 

23 

23 


GROUP 

13. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Hamilton. 

. $1,900 

15 

14 

14 

Cass. 

. 1,900 

17 

29 

29 

Howard. 


14 

15 

16 

Jay. 


13 

13 

13 

Wabash. 

,. . 1,900 

16 

19 

19 





























159 


GROUP 14. 


County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Laporte. 

. $2,000 

18 

35 

36 

Tippecanoe. 

. 2,000 

11 

9 

9 

Wayne. 

. 2,000 

12 

17 

18 


GROUP 

15. 



County. 

Salary Allowed. 

Salary Paid. 

Taxation. 

Collection. 

Elkhart.. 

. $2,200 

10 

8 

8 

Lake. 

. 2,400 

9 

12 

12 

Delaware. 

. 2,700 

6 

5 

5 

St. Joseph. 

. 2,700 

7 

6 

6 

Vigo. 

. 2,700 

8 

7 

7 

Grant. 

. 3,300 

4 

3 

3 

Vanderburgh. 

. 3,400 

5 

11 

11 

Allen. 

. 3,500 

/ 3 

4 

4 

Madison. 

. 3,800 

2 

2 

2 

Marion. 

. ‘ 12,500 

1 

1 

1 















VI. 


Specific Analysis of Figures by Counties Rela¬ 
tive TO Compensation of County Officers. 


The Commission has heard from all the county officers of the State, 
except the following: 

From all the Clerka but eight. 

Adams. 

Dekalb. 

Greene. 

Harrison. 

Hendricks. 

Rush. 

Scott. 

Vanderburgh. 

From all the Auditors but five. 

Adams. 

Delaware. 

Jay. 

Pulaski. 

Sullivan. 

All the Recorders but three. 

Hendricks. 

Pike. 

Sullivan. 

All the Treasurers but five. 

Clark. 

Hendricks. 

Owen. 

Sullivan. 

Washington. 

All the Sheriffs but two. 

Hendricks. 

Marshall. 


- 160 - 



161 


Tlie following is an analysis of the information so ])rocnred con- 
coi-ning- aiverage fees, salarieis and ])ayinents of one year. In the tables 
herewith ]>resented it is designed to show liow much of salaries is made 
np of fees and how nuicli is paid ont of county fund, and wliere exact 
figures were not re}K)rtedj as was the case in a few instances, estimates 
are given, principally })ayments to the Sheriff out of the county fund 
and ])er diem to that officer and Connty Clerk, but for the most ])art 
the figures arc taken from the reports of officers named and of Audi¬ 
tors to the Fee and Salary (Commission. 

ADAMS COUNTY. 

The salary list, under the law of ISOo, for the five county officers'— 
Clerk, Sheriff, Recorder, Auditor and Treaisurer—aggTegates $9,100, 
but there was paid to them an average aggregate of $10,()39, as fol¬ 
lows, the percentage of ])ayments out of the county fund being about 
51.() per cent, of the whole: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,100 $1,600 $500 $2,100 

Sheriff-. 2,000 1,500 1,319 2,819 

Recorder. 1,300 1,300 _ 1,300 

Auditor. 2,300 450 1,910 2,360 

Treasurer. 1,700 300 1,760 2,060 


Total. $9,400 $5,150 $5,489 $10,639 


This shows an excess over the salary list of $1,239. 

Tn this county, relative to the Ccierk, the (Commission was compelled 
to secure its information elsewhere than from that officer, Fhmer John¬ 
son, wlio, with Ids predecessor, John H. Lenhart, failed to reply to the 
questions sent out. 

Tlie Commisision i> also without like reports from the Auditor and 
tlie figures given concerning the (cierk^s office were taken from the 
State Statistician tables covering two years, ending May 30, 1897 and 
1898. From this source it is shown that the collections of the (Cierk 
liave been 118.4 per cent, of Ins salary, including an average ])er diem 
and allowance of $5()(), or an average excess of $400. The Clerk ])rob- 
ably ])aid from $600 to $800 deputy hire, leaving him net from the 
revenues of his office from $1,300 to $1,500. 

It is clear that the (Clerk’s taxation of fees, irrespective of per diem 
and allowaiiees, has not only paid the salary of that officer, under the 
law of 1895, bnt left a surplus which was carried to the county fund, 
amounting, Decemher 1, 1899, to $833.28; more than was dne the 
(Clerk for a (luarter's salary at that date. 

11—F. AND S. Com. 










162 


The Sheriffs collection amounted to 125 per cent., including per 
diem, on a taxation of 142.5 per cent., the excess of taxation being $850 
per annum and collections about $500; after paying $730 to deputiesi, 
he has had net at this rate of collection about $1,270. He has about 
$319 net revenue from the jail, and from foreign fees $125 more, giv¬ 
ing him a total revenue of $1,710 exclusive of deputy hire. The Sheriff 
reporting to the Commission said that the fees of his office have always 
amounted to moi'e than the salary by $500 more or less. ^^Of course,^^ 
he continued, ^‘^my predecessors back for six years are still receiving 
fees, or the county is, and I will be long after going out of office. I 
think my salary is ample, but the officer should be allowed a per cent, 
of his excess of collections to cover expenses, not provided by law.’^ 
The Sheriff reporting went into office November 17, 1898, had col¬ 
lected fees, not only under his own taxation, but $606 for his prede¬ 
cessor, for which he received no compensation. In reply to the ques¬ 
tion relative to fees and charges of which he made no return to the 
County Auditor, he wrote: ^^Only sucli as the Acts of 1895 specify 
and say shall belong to the Sheriff. 

The total revenues of this office are approximately each year— 

From fees. |2,500 00 

Per diem. 500 00 

Foreign fees. 125 00 

Prisoners. 400 00 

Total. f3,525 00 

The Recorder had a taxation and collection of 123.7 per cent., the 
excess over salary being $300 per annum. He paid $500 to deputies, 
leaving him $800 net with no extras; but December 1, 1899, he had a 
surplus in his fund of $867, more than enough to pay two quarters’ 
salary. 

K’oah Mangold, Auditor, made only partial reports, but from the 
State Statistitician tables it is ascertained that the fees of this office 
averaged about $440 per annum, and that 81 per cent, of the salary 
of $2,300 is paid out of the county treasury. In addition the Auditor 
received about $60 a year for attendance on Board of Review. He 
paid from $800 to $1,000 a 3 ^ear to deputies, leaving him net $1,300 
to $1,500. To this can be added $300 a year allowed him under the 
County Council law. 

To the Treasurers salary of $1,700 is added an average of $300 a 
year from delinquent fees and $60 for attendance on Board of Review. 
After paying $620 to deputies he has $1,440 net, plus the interest on 
daily balances. The Treasurer reports that he paid $60 into the fee 








163 


fund, but it was not for oollecting delinquent fees of which he made no 
report to the Auditor, but for advertising sale of real estate. He re¬ 
ceived also compensation, of which he made no return to the Auditor, 
for collecting ta:j^es for three incorporated towns, amounting to 1 per 
cent, in the sum collected. He had one regular deputy, paying him 
$45 per month, and two others for three months each year; total 
amount paid to deputies being $620. 


ALLEN COUNTY. 

In Allen County the average yearly excess of payment for the two 
years covered by this report, over the salary list, was $15,652. The 
payment out of the treasury being 62.6 per cent. The average pay¬ 
ment of fees and of money out of the county fund to each officer was 
as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $6,300 $6,300 $3,718 $10,018 

Sheriff. 6,200 6,200 3,452 9,652 

Recorder. 3,500 3,500 250 3,750 

Auditor. 6,500 2,675 9,787 ^ 12,462 

Treasurer. 4,800 1^650 5,420 7,070 


Total. $27,300 $20,325 $22,627 $42,952 


The Clerk collected 112 per cent, on a taxation of 125 per cent., the 
excess of collection being $807 and taxation $1,612; but the Auditor 
reported to the Commission that the fees turned into the Clerk^s fee 
fund were 107.5 per cent., and the payment on salary only 81.5 per 
cent. These figures do no include per diem, insanity and coroner’s in¬ 
quest fees. The net salar}^ out of fees collected, after paying $3,800 to 
deputies, was $2,500 per year, but to this was added $1,500 to cover the 
compensation specified, of which he made no report to the Auditor, 
giving him $4,000 total average net. The Clerk not only collected 
his salary under his own taxation of fees, but turned into the fee fund 
$904.04 collected on his predecessor's taxation. 

H. M. Metzger, the predecessor of the incumbent, had a contract 
with the County Commissioners for indexing and copying, upon which 
the Auditor of the county reported tliat the Clerk had been paid, dui’- 
ing the two years covered by the Commissioner’s investigation, $4,436. 
In reference to this contract, Frank J. Belot, the successor of Mr. 
Metzger, in office, reported: ^thTo amount paid thereon,” as no final 
settlement had been made with the County Commissioners, i^dding 
the average yearly return from this contract, $2,218, to the above total 









paynieiit, tlie retiring Clerk liatl a revenue out of his otfice for ])art of 
his term of at least $10,018, or net $(),218, after jmying his dejuities. 

The Slieritf collected 04 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 144 
per cent., hut according to the xVuditor's report to the Connnission, he 
turned in fees during the same ])eriod and was paid thereon 138.5 ])er 
cent. If we accept the Sheriff’s figures as correct, lie was paid only 
$5,820 a year, or a deficit of $380; hut if we take the Auditor's repoi’t, 
he was jiaid $8,392, or an excess of $2,192. In one instance he would 
have, after paying $3.500 to deputies, $2,200 net, and in the other 
$4,832. These figures relate solely to fees collected, and to them must 
he added per diem, amounting to $1,200, and a revenue from jail of 
$2,432, giving him a total revenue from his office of $8,530. lie also 
had miscellaneous returns in foreign fees amounting to $250. 

The Kecorder collected 150 per cent, of his salary and turned into 
the fee fund 145 per cent., hut was paid 97.2 per cent. Paying $2,000 
to deputies, he had net $1,500, and in addition $250 the yearly average 
for extra work. 

The Pecorder; W. A. Peichelderfer, recopied records, for which he 
was paid $500 in all. 

To the Auditor's salary was ap])lied $2,075 in fees, leaving 39 per 
cent, to he paid out of the county fund. He ])aid $4.57(5 to deputies, 
giving him a net of $3,150, including extra work. 

Eelative to the extra work done hy the various officers during the 
two years, from March 1, 1897, to IMarch 1, 1899, the Auditor reported 
that L. C. Ifunter, Treasurer, claimed $1,238, which the County Com¬ 
missioners disallowed. He appealed, however, to the circuit court, and 
his a]>peal heing sustained, the amount of the claim was paid him. 
There was paid to C. IV. Edsell, a former Auditor, fen- indexing and 
restoring plats and records, $394, and to his estate for the same work, 
$7,000. This was done under contract with the County Commission¬ 
ers. A like contract existed with L. C. Bohylia, his successor, who was 
paid thereon $1,970. The same work was continued hy the ])resent 
Auditor, who, at the time of making his i-eport to the Commissioner, 
had been paid thereon $00. 


165 


BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY. 

The average yearly payment tO' county officers has exceeded the sal¬ 
ary list by $1,979, the payment out of the treasury being 52 per cent, 
of the whole. 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,400 $2,064 $336 $2,400 

Sheriff. 2,200 1,864 1,600 3,464 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 50 1,450 

Auditor. 2,600 200 2,865 3,065 

Treasurer. 2,100 200 2,100 2,300 


Total. $10,700 $5,728 $6,951 $12,679 


Toward the payment out of fees the Clerk collected, including per 
diem, 113 per cent, on a taxation of 118.5 per cent. He paid one-half 
to deputies, and beside collections under his own taxation collected 
$1,600 under that of his predecessor. 

From the Sheriff's office the Commission has had a report covering 
only seven months^ collection and taxation, but referring to other re¬ 
sources of information it is asceidained that the SherifFs collections 
were about 100 per cent, of his salary. Altogether it is shown by the 
Auditor that for the two years covered by this report that the Sheriff 
turned in but 70 per cent, of his salary, and Avas paid 69 per cent. It is 
thus shown that while current collections may not pay the salar^^, leav¬ 
ing each quarter a deficit, there is no doubt but the resources of the of¬ 
fice Justify the salai*}" fixed under the law, as in the course of time, by 
collections of his successors, the Sheriff obtains his full salar^^ In ad¬ 
dition he receives from the Jail an average of $1,140 a year, and $500 
per diem. Paying $600 to deputies and for the care of prisoners, he 
makes net out of his office from $1,700 to $2,900. 

The Recorder collected 95.1 per cent, out of the taxation of 112 per 
cent., but there is no question but that wuth little more vigorous col¬ 
lections there need be no deficit in the salary at any time. He paid 
$313 to deputies, and had net, with an average of $50 for extra work, 
$1,117. 

In addition to the xAuditoFs fees of $200 per year, tliere w^as paid 
him to cover his full salary 91.7 per cent, out of the county fund. Pay¬ 
ing $1,300 to deputies, he had a net compensation of $1,300. In addi¬ 
tion he was paid $920 for extra work, an average of $460 a year, giving 
him $1,760 net, to which can be added $60 for attending Board of 
Review^ and $400 for County Council work. 

The Treasurer, in addition to his salan*)^ of $2,100 per year, averaged 
$200 from delinquent fees. After paying $600 to deputies, he had 









166 


net about $1,700, to which can he added $60 the year for attending 
Board of Eeview and amounts not reported as perquisites and interest 
on money. 


BENTON COUNTY. 

There was paid to the county officers an excess over the salary list 
of $1,007, the payment out of the treasury being 46.7 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $1,500 $1,443 $200 $1,643 

Sheriff. 1,500 1,130 800 1,930 

Kecorder. 1,100 1,100 10 1,110 

Auditor. 1,600 227 1,385 1,612 

Treasurer. 1,300 360 1,352 1,712 


Total. $7,000 $4,260 $3,747 $8,007 


The Clerk collected 96.2 per cent, on a taxation of 100 per cent. 
In addition to his salary from fees he retained $200 per diem on an 
average, giving him a total of $1,643; paying $700 to deputies, he had 
a net income of $943, but the Clerk reported that his salary was never 
fully paid out of the fees collected because of the small amount of 
litigation. 

The Sheriff collected 69 per cent, on a taxation of 100 per cent., but 
the deficits thus occurring are more than covered by his per diem and 
court allowances and profits from jail, all of which average about $800 
the year. As he paid $558 to deputies, his compensation out of fees 
collected appears to have been only $446, but this sum plus per diem 
and incidentals would give him over $1,300 net. In this office, as in 
others, there is a discrepancy as to fees turned in by him and salary 
paid, the Auditor shovdng a collection and payment of salary of only 
61.3 per cent. The Sheriff says that the fees allowed are not sufficient 
to make the salary, and that uncollectible fees are due to State cases, 
nolle prosequi and dismissals by the prosecutor. 

The total revenues from this office can be approximated as foUows: 


From fees. $1,130 

From jail. 600 

From per diem. 225 

From miscellaneous. 178 

Total. $2,133 


The Recorder, whose fund alone showed a surplus, December 1, 
1899, amounting to $1,052, taxed and collected from 125 to 130 per 














1C7 


cent, of his salary. He thus received his full salary, and paid to depu¬ 
ties $300, giving him net $800, the surplus being within $300 sufficient 
to pay one year s salary. 

The Auditor was paid 63.9 per cent, of his salary out of the county 
fund, his fees averaging $227 the year, and he had $700 net after 
paying $900 to deputies. To the net return can be added $52 for at¬ 
tending Board of Eeview, about $10 per year for acting as Clerk of the 
Turnpike Board, and $500 as Clerk of County Council, making in all 
$1,262 net. 

The Treasurer, in addition to his salary of $1,300, paid out of the 
County Treasury, had $300 on an average in delinquent fees. Paying 
$680 to deputies he had as a net salary, $980, under the law. To 
which can be added compensation for service on Board of Eeview $52, 
and perquisites in interest not given. 

BLACKFORD COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment to the county officers named, over 
their aggregate salary list was $2,039. The payment out of the Treas¬ 
ury being 48 per cent, of the whole. These average payments were 
as follows: 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 

Clerk... $1,600 $1,600 $372 $1,972 

Sheriff. 1,600 1,600 1,047 2,647 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 50 1,450 

Auditor. 1,700 123 1,637 1,760 

Treasurer. 1,300 450 1,360 1,810 


Total. $7,600 $5,173 $4,466 $9,639 


The Clerk^s collections were 209 per cent, on a taxation of 279 per 
cent., the taxed fees exceeding salary $2,635 yearly, and collection 
$1,724. In addition the Clerk retained his per diem and allowances, 
about $372 per year. This gave him a gross income of $1,972, out of 
which he paid $620 to deputies, leaving him net $1,350. 

In addition to his own collections the Clerk received $75 under the 
taxation of his predecessor. He had, December 1, 1899, a surplus in 
his fund of $9,166, more than enough to pay the salary for five years. 

The Sheriff taxed 191.4 per cent, of his salary and oollected 142.8 
per cent.; paying very little to deputies, gave him a yearly net salary of 
about $1,400 out of his fees. To this he added an average of $350 per 
diem from the Commissioners and Circuit Courts, $697 from jail and 
tumkey^s fees. He had resources of $557 in foreign fees, but out of 
which he collected only $100. He made net out of his office, on an 
average, from $2,100 to $2,300. 









Approximating the total revenues of the Sheriff we have from fees 
on the average yearly $2,371, per diem $350, jail $650, miscellaneous 
$179. Besides, there was a surplus, on December 1, 1899, of $2,1')0, 
enough to pay the salary for more than a year and a quarter. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 134 per cent, of his salary, but the 
Auditor showed that the Eecorder, for the two years under considera¬ 
tion, collected 131.1 per cent. After paying $400 to deputies he had 
a net salary of $1,000. 

A surplus of $476 also existed in the Eecorder’s fund, more than 
enougli to pay the Eecorder’s salary for the quarter. 

The Auditor collected an average of $125 a year in fees, 92.6 per 
cent, of his salary being paid out of the county treasury. Paying $800 
to deputies he had $900 net on his own showing. 

The Treasurer, to a salary of $1,300 paid out of the county fund, 
added $450 in delinquent tax fees yearly, out of which resources he 
paid $700 to deputies, leaving him net $1,050. 


BOONE COUNTY. 


The yearly excess of payment over the salar}" list averaged $2,012, 
the payment out of the treasury being 49 per cent, of the whole. The 
average payment to each county officer, out of fees and county fund, 
was as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. 12,600 $2,262 $444 $2,706 

Sheriff. 2,400 1,912 1,364 3,276 

Eecorder. 1,700 1,700 180 1,880 

Auditor. 2,800 500 2,490 2,990 

Treasurer. 2,100 600 2,160 2,760 


Total. $11,600 $6,974 $6,638 $13,612 


The Clerk collected 114.7 per cent, on a taxation of 192 per cent.; 
the excess being $2,400 in taxation and $395 in collection. He turned 
all fees, with per diem and allowances, into the treasury, under the ad¬ 
vice of court, retaining nothing but payment for copies of records, 
etc. He paid $1,500 to deputies, giving him net $1,100. The money 
retained, as specified, gave him from $100 to $200 additional, making 
his total average net from $1,200 to $1,300. The predecessors of the 
Clerk served under the old fee and salary law, therefore, the collec¬ 
tions under their taxation made by Oliver P. Worley, the Clerk report¬ 
ing, were paid directly to the predecessors, although Mr. Worley had 
in his own fund, December 1, 1899, a surplus of $1,573, more than 









169 


enough to pay two quarters' salary. There was further paid the Clerk, 
within the two years covered by this report, $212 for indexing and 
boxing papers in estates and guardianship; this was done under a con¬ 
tract with the County Commissioners, but whether it was a continu¬ 
ous or terminating contract was not stated. This gave him abont $106 
yearly additional. 

The Sheriff reported taxation, collection and payment for only three 
montlis, but from the Auditor’s report to this Commiission it is ascer¬ 
tained that the Sherih’s collections were 131.7 per cent, of his salary, 
during the two years covered by this report, and that he was paid oai 
an average 106.7 per cent., the excess of collection being $760 and 
payment $142. This excess of payment out of fees was, no doubt, 
made to cover past deficiencies of salary. After paying $800 to depn- 
ties he had $1,100 net out of fees, and in addition $1,364, covering per 
diem, jail and miscellaneous receipts, giving him average net froin 
$2,400 to $2,600 the year. During his short term of service up to the 
date of his making his report to this Commission, the Sheriff collected 
$197.45 for his predecessor, and, moreover, had a surplus in his fund, 
December 1, 1899, of $644.30. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office we have, yearly. 


From fees.!. $2,000 

Per diem. 488 

Care of prisoners. 900 

Miscellaneous. 350 

Totaf. $3,738 


The Eecorder taxed 119.8 per cent., but repoided to the Commission 
that he did not know how much he had collected; however, he Imew his 
salary was paid in full out of fees collected, which, according to returns 
of the Auditor, was 119.2 per cent, of his salary, or $291 in excess 
thereof. He paid $1,000 for deputy hire, leaving him $700 net. His 
l>redeces&or had $360 allowed him for extra work. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 83.5 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees amounting to about $500 the year and net salary $1,600 
after the payment of $1,200 to deputies. In addition he was allowed 
$30 for attending Board of Review and $400 for services as Clerk of 
the County Council. 

As to extra payments, during the two years covered by this investi¬ 
gation, the Auditor reported that his predecessor had been paid $65.75 
for making new school fund register. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,100 was added an average of $600 
in delinquent fees, his net compensation being $1,400, after paying 







170 


$1,300 to deputies. Besides, he wa,s compensated for oollecting the 
taxes of incorporated towns, and received interest on bank deposits. 


BROWN COUNTY. 

The total payment to county officers was $158 less than the salary 
allowed, the payment out of the Treasury being 50.5 per cent., wiih 
the average payment to each county officer as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $1,200 $751 $149 $900 

Sheriff. 1,200 662 350 1,012 

Recorder. 800 800 . 800 

Auditor. 1,300 100 1,200 1,300 

Treasurer. 1,100 330 1,100 1,430 


Total. $5,600 $2,643 $2,799 $5,442 


The Clerk collected and was paid 77.3 per cent, upon a taxation of 
93.3 per cent., the deficiency of taxation being $100 the year and de¬ 
ficiency of collection $300. He stated that the taxation and collection 
can not be made to pay his salary, notwithstanding he pays all per diem 
and allowances into the treasury, and that at the best he can not make 
more than $900 the year out of the office. His average collections 
for his predecessor were $110 the year. The difficulty under which he 
worked, he claims, was the want of sufficient business. 

The Clerk collected for his predecessor an average of $100 a year, 
and the Sheriff a like amount. 

The Sheriff collected on his salary 59.7 per cent., while the taxation 
was 90 per cent, of his salary. He employed no deputies, but at the 
best he can not make more than $800 a year out of his office, to which 
cau be added $200 from incidentals, such as per diem and care of pris¬ 
oners. 

The Recorder taxed and collected only 66.2 per cent, of his salary, 
though he reported to the Auditor, for the two years under coinsidera- 
tion, 42.8 per cent, of his salar}^, but his report to the State Statis¬ 
tician for practically the same period covered by this Commission 
shows his receipts to have been 156 per cent. This would indicate that 
the office is self-sustaining, though undergoing periods of fiuctuation 
in deficiencies and excess of fees. With a few minor perquisites which 
come to him in making deeds and abstracts he makes about $50 more 
than his salary a year. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 92.2 per cent, is paid out of the county fund. 
His fees to cover the remainder average about $100 a year. Paying 










171 


$475 to deputies he has net $825, to which can he added, for the year 
1900, $200 for services in connection with the County Council. 

In addition to the Treasurer’s salary of $1,100, paid out of the 
county fund, he has the use of about $330 from delinquent tax fees. 
His net salary is about $1,200 the year. 

CARROLL COUNTY. 

The yearly excess of payment averaged $2,360 over the salary list, 
the payment out of the treasury being $47.1 per cent, of the whole. 
The payments to the several officers were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,100 $2,100 $240 $2,340 

Sheriff. 2,000 1,700 1,300 3,000 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 . 1,400 

Auditor. 2,300 100 2,260 2,360 

Treasurer. 1,700 1,000 1,760 2,760 


Total. $9,500 $6,300 $5,560 $11,860 


The Clerk reported collection of 81.8 per cent, on a taxation of 85.8 
per cent., but for the same period the Auditor reported to the Commis¬ 
sion that the Clerk turned in $581 in excess of his salary, or 113.8 per 
cent. This agrees with the statement otherwise made by the Clerk that 
his fees collected were equal to his salary. During the two years under 
consideration he retained his per diem and court allowances, amount¬ 
ing to $200 or $240 the year, which gave him an average of $2,340. 
His compensation, after paying $600 to deputies, averaged net $1,740. 
As further evidence of the abundant resources of this office the Clerk 
had a surplus, December 1, 1899, of $936, within a small amount of 
being sufficient to cover two quarters’ salary. During his own collec¬ 
tions he collected $630 for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff, on a taxation of about 100 per cent., coUected 85.5 per 
cent., leaving him a deficiency of about $259 yearly. However, the 
Auditor reported that he turned into the treasury only 64.6 per cent., 
a deficit of $707 the year; but the Auditor further reported that the 
Sheriff was paid his full salary. On the other hand the Sheriff re¬ 
ported that his average payment was only $1,700. It is possible that 
this difference in reports can be explained by the fact that the County 
Commissioners allowed the Sheriff, not only fees collected, but an 
amount out of the surplus of the Sheriff’s fund to make up the deficit. 
This was also done in regard to the deficit in the predecessor’s salary, 
givng each officer his full salary of $2,000 a year. In addition the 









172 


Sheriff retained his per diem, amounting to $480 a year, and an 
average of $950 the year for hoarding prisoners and turnkeys’ fees, 
giving him a net'compensation, less deputy hire and expense for care 
of prisoners, of $2,300 to $2,500. As to tlie taxation uncollected, the 
Sheriff estimated it at about 40 per cent. 

Approximating the yearly revenues from this office we have: 


From fees. $1,700 

Deficiencies paid. 300 

Per diem. 488 

Jail. 950 

Total, about. $3,600 


The Becorder collected 117.6 per cent, on an equal amount of tax¬ 
ation; after paying $313 to deputies he had $1,083. In the Recorder’s 
fund, December 1, 1899, there was a surplus of $1,201, an amount 
within $200 of being sufficient to cover a year’s salary. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 96.3 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees averaging about $100 the year. Paying $1,160 to 
deputies, he had net $1,100, with an allowance of $60 the year for 
attending the Board of Review and $400 for services as Clerk of the 
County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s $1,700 paid out of the eoimty treasury he added 
an average of $1,000 in delinquent tax fees; paying $750 to deputies 
be had net $950 from these sources of compensation, not counting the 
interest he received on his deposits and other perquisites arising in the 
course of business. 


CASS COUNTY. 

The yearly excess of payment over the salary" list averaged, during 
the two years covered by this report, $2,890, the payment out of the 
treasury being 51.8 per cent. 

These payments distributed as follows show: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $3,300 $2,800 $500 $3,300 

Sheriff. 2,800 2,070 2,200 4,270 

Recorder. 1,900 1,900 100 2,000 

Auditor. 3,600 200 3,460 3,660 

Treasurer. 2,500 1,200 2,560 3,760 


Total. $14,100 $7,470 $8,820 $16,990 


The Clerk reported collections of only 72.7 per cent., but a payment 
of the salary in full, the deficit of collection being $900. Tliis was on 














173 


a taxation of 103 pt^r cent., or an excess of $100, bnt the Auditor re¬ 
ported that the fees turned in hy the Clerk, and payment thereon, 
amounted to 93.4 per cent, of his salary. Under these conditions 
there is no doubt Imt that in the course of his term he receives his full 
salar}' of $3,300 per year, which leaves him $1,600, after paying $1,700 
to deputies. Included in his collections there are per diem and allow¬ 
ances of $500 the year. The fee fund was not replenished by the 
Clerk's collections for his predecessor, as the latter worked under the 
old fee law, and the collections made by the incumbent were paid di¬ 
rectly to him. It ap|)ears that the per diem and court allowances are 
more than sufficient to make up the cleticiency in fees. As to this 
deficiency the Clerk very plainly says that it is because the fees are not 
paid. 

The Sheritl, under a. taxation amounting to 120.6 per cent, of his 
salary, or $578 in excess, collected 72 per cent., with $782 deficit. 
The fees turned into the treasury were little more than this per cent, of 
collection, enough to indicate that the average collections were 74 per 
cent. His average compensiation from fees was, therefore, about 
$2,070; paying $1,780 to deputies, he had of this income $292 net, but 
including $600 per diem for commission and Circuit Court and about 
$2,000 from the jail, he had net $2,892. 

The Sheriff’s immediate predecessor was deficient $1,700 in his 
salary on fees collected, but this was made up on an allowance by the 
County Commissioners. 

Approximating the total yearly revenues of the office we have on 
an average: 


From fees. $2,070 

Per diem. 600 

From jail. 2,000 

Miscellaneous. 300 

Total. $4,970 


The Recorder taxed and collected 115.7 per cent, of his salary, or an 
excess of $299; after paying $800 to deputies he had net $1,100, and in 
addition $100 a year for extra work. 4’he amount for extra work was 
reported by the Auditor as having been paid under contract with the 
County Commissioners for restoring })lat book. For this work, during 
the two years covered by this report, the Kecorder was allowed $215, 
the yearlv average of which is included in the table above. 

Of the Auditor's salary $200 was paid from fees and the remainder, 
92.4 per cent., out of the county treasury; paying $1,800 to deputies 
he has had $1,800 net. jjIus $60 for attending the Board of Review and 







174 


$600 for services as Clerk of the County Council. He further claimed 
$100 the year for making the annual report of the County Com¬ 
missioners, but this was allowed in but one instance. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,500 was added an average of $1,200 
in delinquent fees, giving him net $2,300, after paying $1,400 to 
deputies; he also was allowed $60 a year for attending the Board of 
Eeview, and had, moreover, personal revenue from use of the county 
fund. 


CLARK COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged yearly $2,815, 
the payment out of the county fund being 51.5 per cent, of the whole. 
The distribution of these payments was as follows; 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,700 

$2,700 

$200 

$2,900 

Sheriff. 

2,600 

2,600 

2,500 

5,100 

Recorder. 

L700 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor. 

3,000 

325 

2,730 

3,055 

Treasurer. 

2,300 

500 

2,360 

2,860 

Total.... 

$12,300 

$7,325 

$7,790 

$15,115 


The Clerk collected 181.3 per cent, of his salary, or an excess of 
$2,196. He reported no taxation of fees^ He has an additional re¬ 
source of exceptional amount from marriage license fees from appli¬ 
cants in an adjoining State, the total collected each year being about 
$1,200. To these applicants he sells lithoigraph certificates, not pro¬ 
vided by law, for which he receives as his own about $500 a year. He 
has made no statement as to the disposition of his per diem, amount¬ 
ing to $200 per year, and if he retains this, it would give him that 
amount in addition, or a total, iueluding payment from other re- 
cources, of $3,400. Paying $1,000 to deputies, he had, under such 
conditions, $2,400 net. The Clerk’s predecessor was under the old fee 
law, and during the two years covered by this investigation received 
$1,200 from collections. The Clerk reporting said that he was very 
diligent in his collections, as he issued fee bills in every case, an ex¬ 
ceptional condition, as the rule has been a violation of the law 
throughout the State by the Clerks to issue fee bills only when com¬ 
pelled to do so. 

The former Sheriff, Joseph I. Hawes, whom the Commission firat 
addressed for information, failed to report. It was then asked from liis 
successor, Herman Rave, who would have supplied it had it been possi¬ 
ble for him to do so, but his predecessor left no books in the office from 










175 


which the information desired could be collected, but the Auditor of 
Clark County reported that Mr. Hawes, within the two years covered 
by this report, collected 109.7 per cent, of his salary, or an excess of 
$250 yearly. The present Sheriff pays about $800 to deputies, thus 
leaving him, out of fees collected, which he says are sufficient to meet 
the salary, $1,800 net. He retains his per diem from the Commis¬ 
sioners and Circuit Court, and has a gross revenue, approximately, as 
follows: 


From fees. $2,858 

Per diem. 450 

Miscellaneous. 200 

Care of prisoners. 1,650 

Total. $5,158 


Out of this he has net between $3,000 and $3,400. Relative to his 
d.eputies, we quote from Mr. Rave the following, which is more or less 
pertinent to the payment of deputies by Sheriffs throughout the 
State: have one chief deputy whose work is mainly that of jailer 

and superintendent of workhouse, and during session of court, clerical. 
He receives $1,000, of which $300 is paid by the county on account of 
salary as superintendent of the workhouse. In addition he is paid his 
per diem as a regular bailiff, which amounts to about $240 per an¬ 
num, but the remainder of the $1,000, $460, is paid by me. I 
have three so-called riding bailiffs in the county who work during 
vacation without compensation, but receive about $60 each during the 
session of court. I also employ a night jailer at $1 per night, and 
occasionally special deputies.^^ 

The Recorder taxed and collected 78.8 per cent, of his salary and 
was paid the same, the deficit being $539; but the Auditor reported 
that the Recorder turned into the treasury $521 less than his salary, or 
69 per cent, of it. The Recorder made no report of deputy hire, but 
allowing $500 for this expenditure, his average salary has been about 
$700 out of fees collected. 

Of the Auditors salary, 89 per cent, was paid out of the county fund 
and $329 in fees. Paying about $1,000 to deputies he has had a net 
salary of $2,000. To this can be added $400 for County Council 
service and per diem for Board of Review. 

M. E. Pangburn failed to report, but it is assumed that from the 
$2,300 salary and from $500 to $800 in fees, he has net $2,200. To his 
salar}^ can be added $60 for attending Board of Review and interest 
on deposits. 







176 


(’LAY COUNTY. 

The exoeifis of ])aviiieiit to the county officers averaged yearly, during 
the period coven.'d by this investigation, $3,284, the ])ayni;ent out of 
the treasury l)eing 52 ])er cent, of the wliole. 

The ])aynients were distrihuted as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. , County Fund'. Total. 


Clerk. $2,800 $2,382 $360 $2,742 

Sheriff. 2,600 2,400 2,192 4,592 

Kecorder. 1,700 1,700 240 1,940 

Auditor. 3,000 600 3,000 3,600 

Treasurer. 2,300 450 2,360 2,310 

Total. $12,400 $7,532 $8,152 ' $15,684 


The Clerk collected 85.2 per cent, on a taxation of 111.3 per cent.., 
the excess of the latter being $317, and deficits of collections $582. 
the deficiency in collection was due to leniency in making litigants 
tion for extra work, of which he made no return to the County 
Auditor. This included work done by him which could have been 
done legally by other officers as work ordered by court. The exact 
amount he did not give. Tliis was in addition to per diem and allow¬ 
ances amounting to about $3(30 the year. Relative to per diem, he and 
the Sheriff retained it until January 1, 1000, after which date he ])ai(l 
it into the treasury. After ])aying $000 to de])uties, he has had from 
$1,840 to $2,000, net. The Clerk collected for his predecessor," who 
worked under the old fee and salary law, $327.80. He stated that- 
under the old law the Clerk’s net compensation was $2,800 instead of 
$2,087 that he received net. He further informed the Coinmission 
that while his taxation was more than sufficient to meet his salary,, 
the deticiency in collection was due to leniency in making litigants 
])ay costs accrued against them. 

The Sheriff collected 82.1 iier cent, on a taxation of 100 ])er cent., 
the deficiency in collection being $3(34, but he stated elsewhere in his 
re]>ort that his deficiency was only $200 a year, leaving him $2,400 
out of a salary of $2,600, and $1,100 net from fees, after ])aying $1,300 
to de])uties. He was ])aid in per diem and for care of ])risoners an 
average of $2,102 a year, leaving him a total net, after subtracting ex- 
]>ense of jail, from $2,100 to $2,500. The Sheriff also collected 
$311.13 for his ]iredecessor, which went, no doubt, to meet the de¬ 
ficiency in that officer's salary; Imt subsequent to making his report 
to the Commission on December 1, 1890, there was a surplus of $1,305 
in the Sheriff's fund, enough to meet two (puirters' salary. It is the 








opinion of the Conimi&sion that by a little effort on the part of the 
Sheriff his salary can always be met by current collections. The de¬ 
ficiency he attributed to expense in State prosecutions, for which he 
received nothing in return, and ^^persons litigating who Avere not worth 
the costs. There is another class,^^ he remarks, ^Svho can pay but do 
not. Furthermore, there is a saving in cost on the part of attorneys 
and litigants by serving their OAvn Avitnesses.’^ 

He also complained of loss in transporting prisoners and the insane. 

Approximating his total revenues for the year, from figures at hand, 
Ave have: 


From fees. $2,400 

Per diem. 500 

Transportation. 300 

Jail. 1,000 

Miscellaneous.:. .... 150 

Total. $4,350 


The Kecorder taxed and collected 100 per cent, of his salary, and Avas 
alloAved $240 for re-copying an old deed book; this gave him a net com- 
j)ensation of $1,100 out of a salary of $1,700, after paying $750 to 
deputies. 

To the Auditors salary an average of $605 a year Avas applied in 
fees, the remainder, 79.8 per cent., being paid out of the treasury. He 
had net $1,500 after paying $1,500 to deputies. To this can be added 
$60 for attending Board of Eeview, and $400 for services as Clerk of 
the County Council. His predecessor Avas paid $681.43 for indexing 
records, and previous to that the Auditor Avas paid $240 extra for re¬ 
storing old records. 

To the Treasurerks salar}- of $2,300, paid out of the county fund, 
AA"as added $460 in delinquent fees; after paying $1,300 to deputies he 
had net $1,450, and $60 for attending Board of Eeview, besides inter¬ 
est on deposits. 


CLINTON COUNTY. 


The excess of payment, during the tAvo years covered by this report, 
averaged $3,116 over the salary list, the payment out of the treasury 
being 53.9 per cent. 


12 F. AKD S. Com. 








ITS 


The payments were distributed as follows: 

Salary Alloived. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. 12,700 $2,200 $663 $2,863 

Sheriff. 2,600 1,600 2,243 3,843 

Recorder. 1,800 1,800 425 2,225 

Auditor. 2,900 350 2,675 3,025 

Treasurer. 2,200 1,100 2,260 3,360 


Total. $12,200 $7,050 $8,266 , $15,316 


The Clerk collected 131.2 per cent, on a taxation of 138.5 per oeait. 
of his salary; the excess of taxation being $1,000 the year, and collec¬ 
tion $528. lie reported the retention of no fees, as he was not allowed 
his per diem, although he claimed it, which amounted from $500 to 
$600 the year. After paying $900 to deputies he had $1,800 net. 
While the Clerk^s collections paid, and have paid, his salary, he col¬ 
lected a considerahle amount for his predecessor, who worked under 
the old law. At the time the report was sent to the Commission he 
had collected, on this account, $3,000. 

The Sheriff collected 66.5 per cent, of his salary, and was paid that 
amount; but in the Auditors report to the Commission of fees turned 
in during the same period, it was shown that the Sheriff collected 76.9 
per cent, and was paid that amount, the deficit, in the first instance, 
being $1,000, and .$552 in the second. On the other hand, the Sheriff 
reported to the State Statistician, for a period practically the same 
covered by this report, that his receipts were only 48 per cent. It is 
the opinion of the Commission that from the average fees collected, as 
shown by the Auditor, the Sheriff has from $400 to $700 net out of 
the fees after paying $1,200 to deputies. As his per diem is included 
in the collections, it being paid into the treasury and drawn out on 
salary, he had nothing additional but a revenue from care of prisoners, 
wliich amounted on an average of $1,800 the year, out of which he has 
a profit of one-half, giving him a net return of from $1,300 to $1,600 
the year. 

The Sheriff, with some emphasis, said that if all the fees of his 
office were collected they would not meet the salary by about $600 or 
$800 the year. He further stated that he had nothing additional from 
transporting prisoners, as he was allowed only his actual expenses 
therefor. He had no account of his predecessor’s fees, as they were 
collected and paid out by the Clerk. But relative to the Sheriff, the 
Auditor said he could about make his salar}^, provided ^ffie turaed 
in his fees for attending Circuit and Commissioners Court.” 

Approximating the revenues of the Sheriff’s office, we have, on an 
average yearly: 









179 


From fees and per diem. $2,000 

From jail. 1^800 

Miscellaneous. 150 


Total. $3,950 


The Recorder reported 145.2 per cent, in collections and taxation, or 
^1,308 in excess of his salary; P^yi^^g $850 to deputies he had net out 
of his fees $950, and in addition was allowed $250 for extra work, an 
average of $125. 

Of the Auditor’s salary about $350 was from fees and 88 per cent, 
out of the county treasury; after paying $1,500 to deputies he had 
$1,400 net, with $100 per year for making assessors’ books, and $60 for 
attending Board of Review. He reported no payment to him on ac¬ 
count of services for the County Council. Relative to extra work, the 
Auditor reported that from ]\Ia,rch 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, claims on 
the part of his predecessor, amounting to $400 for making Commis¬ 
sioners’ docket for four years, was presented, but not allowed, as was 
that of the preceding Treasurer for $1,300 covering demand fees and 
levy costs turned in lyv him, nor were the claims of Clerk and Sheriff 
per diem allowed. But the foinner Auditor was paid $130 for making 
Township Assessors’ books, and payments were made to outside parties 
for transcribing two double index records, the payment for which was 
$300. 

Tlie Treasurer has added to his salary of $2,200 paid out of the 
county treasury an average of $1,100 in delinquent fees. He was also 
paid $60 for attending Board of Review, and received interest on de¬ 
posits, of which he made no record. Paying $1,600 to deputies, he 
had net $1,700 out of salary and fees. 

CRAWFORD COl^NTY. 

The aggregate jjayment to the county officers was, on an average, 
$407 less than the salary list, the j.'ayment out of the treasur)^ being 
50.8 per cent., which was distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk..... 

$1,600 

$1,000 

$100 

$1,100 

Sheriff. 

1,600 

1,300 

500 

1,800 

Recorder. 

1,100 

793 


793 

Auditor. 

1,700 

150 

1,550 

1,700 

Treasurer .... 

1,400 

200 

1,400 

1,600 

Total.... 

$7,400 

$3,443 

$3,550 

$6,993 


The Clerk collected 72.3 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 84.4 
per cent., the yearly deficiency in taxation being $250 and collection 















180 


$500. Eeporting that he paid all fees and allowances into the treasui’y 
and to his deputies $420 yearly, he had a net salary of $766. There is 
a difference between his rep or f to the Commission and the Auditor’s 
report thereto concerning fees collected, the Auditor showing that 
the Clerk had paid into the treasury and received on salary 83.4 per 
cent., a deficit of $266 the year, which would give him net'$914. The 
Clerk said that even with the per diem and allowances, he had never 
been able to make his salary, and during the term of his collections, 
under his own taxation, he collected a small amount for his predeces¬ 
sor, the sum thereon, up to the date of his making report, being $156. 

The Sheriff taxed 93 per cent, of his salary and collected 75 per 
cent., the deficiency of taxation being, on the average, $100 a year, 
and the collection $300. However, the Auditor reported to the Com¬ 
mission that the Sheriff had paid into the fee fund an excess of $46, 
which indicates a self-sustaining office. The Sheriff claimed else¬ 
where in his report a yearly deficit of $400. Assuming his'figures to 
be correct, after paying $300 to deputies, his net salary, out of fees 
collected, would be $900, and on the showing of the Auditor $1,300; 
his allowances and other incidentals, amounting to $500 the year, 
would give him, in one instance, $1,400 net, and in the other $1,800. 

The Recorder collected 68.8 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
about 80 per cent., but the Auditor showed that he turned into the fee 
fund an average of 72 per cent., the deficit yearly being $307. As he 
employed no deputies, this was the amount paid him net. 

To the Auditors salary was applied an average of $150 in fees, the 
remainder, 91 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury. He 
paid $600 to deputies, and had net $1,100. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,400, paid out of the county treas¬ 
ury, was added $200 in delinquent fees, giving him a total of $1,600, 
out of which he had net $1,300, after paying $300 to deputies. 

DAVIESS COUNTY. 

There was a yearly average excess of payment of $3,325, the pay¬ 
ment out of the treasim- being 38.2 per cent, of the whole. 

These payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allotved. 

Fees, 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,600 

$2,600 

$300 

$2,900 

Sheriff. 

2.4C0 

. 2,400 

1,000 

3,400 

Kecorder. 

1,700 

1,700 

25 

1,725 

Auditor. 

2,800 

500 

2,300 

2,800 

Treasurer. 

2,100 

2,000 

2,100 

4,100 

Total.... 

$11,600 

$9,200 

$5,725 

$14,925 








181 


The Clerk collected 103.2 per cent, on a taxation of 130 per cent., 
the excess of taxation being $792 over the salary list, and collection 
$83, but to make up past deficiencies it was shown by the x\uditor that 
he was paid 109 per cent, of his salary; paying $700 to deputies, he had 
net $1,900, outside of his per diem and allowances, which amounted to 
about $300 the year. Relative to his collections the Clerk said: 
have been diligent in issuing fee bills for the collection of costs when 
not otherwise paid, aaid I have used every effort in the collection of 
all costs taxed in favor of the Clerk and other county officers. As you 
will see, we have not a great deal of outstanding costs, but I believe 
that I can safely say that of all the fees taxed and not collected, there 
will be 40 per cent, uncollectible. By close and careful collection 
the salary of the Clerk can be made under the present schedule.’’ 

The Sheriff collected, and was paid 72.6 per cent., leaving a deficit 
of $658; this is only a little less than the taxation, which amounted to 
73 per cent., or a deficit of $618. This was from the Sheriff’s report, 
which was for five months less than two years. As to fees collected by 
this officer, the Auditor, covering a period of two years, puts a different 
phase on the conditions in that county. He reported that the Sheriff 
had turned into the treasury 149.7 per cent., an excess of $1,193, and 
that he was paid at the rate of 108.5 per cent., or an excess of $204. 
As confirmatory of these figures, turning to the State Statistician’s 
tables, the Commission has ascertained that the collections, for prac¬ 
tically the same period, were 144 per cent, of the salary. It is evident 
that the Sheriff receives his full salary, which would leave him net out 
of fees $1,800, after paying $600 to deputies; adding $1,000 inci¬ 
dentals in per diem and care of prisoners, he has a total net of $2,800 
the year. As*showing the condition that exists in most of the counties 
of the State relative to the Sheriff’s office, we quote from a letter ad¬ 
dressed to the Commission from the Sheriff of this county, as follows: 
‘^Aly predecessor kept no fee book or any account of fees taxed, there¬ 
fore it would be an almost endless job for me to go through the fee 
books in the Clerk’s office to get an account of his taxation prior to 
August 25, 1897, the date when I went into office.” 

Approximating the total revenues from this office, we have: 


From fees. $3,000 

Per diem. 450 

Jail. 600 


Miscellaneous 


Total 


$4,250 








182 


Tlie Eecorder collected and taxed 152.2 per cent., or an excess of 
$885. lie was allowed $45 for re-copying an old deed book; after 
paying $750 to deputies he had an average net salary of $950. 

Of the Auditorks salary 83 per cent, was paid out of the county fund, 
the remainder covered by an average of $500 in fees; paying $800 to 
deputies, he had net $2,000. 

The Treasurers salary' of $2,100, paid out of the county fund, was 
increased by about $2,000 in delinquent tax fees, giving him $3,205 
net, after paying $895 to deputies. To the compensation of this 
officer, and to the Auditor, can be added $60 the year for attendance on 
Board of Eeview. The Treasurer, in addition, received interest on 
deposits. 


DEARBORN COUNTY. 


There was an average payment yearly of $1,808 over the salary list, 
the payment out of the treasuiy being 59 per cent, of the whole, and 
distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,400 

$1,794 

$606 

$2,400 

Sheriff... 

2,200 

1,300 

1,922 

3,222 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,350 


1,350 

Auditor. 

2,500 

400 

2,576 

2,976 

Treasurer. 

2,100 

300 

2,160 

2,460 

Total.... 

$10,600 

$5,144 

$7,264 

$12,408 


The Clerk collected 125 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 163 
per cent., including per diem, but from the Auditor’s report to this 
Commission it is learned that he turned in, during the two years, only 
82.4 per cent, of his salary, and was paid the full amount of it; after 
paying $1,200 to deputies, he had $1,200 net out of fees. With¬ 
out the per diem and court allowances the fees of the Clerk’s office, at 
the rate of current collections, as represented to this Commission, 
would about meet the salary, but in addition to these collections the 
Clerk collected $1,000 on account t>f his predecessor’s taxation, which 
permitted him to have a surplus in his fund December 1, 1899, of 
$603.50, about equal to one quarter’s salary. In addition to his salary 
the Clerk’s predecessor was paid $800 for indexing. There has been 
a court decision in this county in favor of the Clerk’s retention of per 
diem in addition to his salary. 

The Sheritf’s report to this Commission covers only three months of 
the time required, but referring to the State Statistician’s report it is 











183 


ascertainetl that liis receipts for two years were 107 per cent, of his sal¬ 
ary; but the Auditor reported that the Sheriff turned intO' the treasury, 
during practically the same period, only 58.3 per cent., and was paid 
his full salary, including per diem. In the face of these varying state¬ 
ments, the Sheriff stated there was $100 deficit in his collections, but 
it is the opinion of the Commissioii the full salary is earned in the 
course of the Sheriff’s term. After paying $100 to deputies, he has 
net, out of his fees and per diem, $1,800, to which can he added $760 
from the jail, and, as reported by the Auditor, an average of $1,163 
on other allowances not specified, giving him a total net of from $3,300 
to $3,600. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office, from the figures 
available, irrespective of deputy hire and expense in care of prisoners, 
we have: 


From fees and per diem. $2,400 

From jail. 750 

Other allowances. 1,162 

Miscellaneous. 200 

Total. $4,522 


The Recorder collected the full amount of his taxation, or 87.2 per 
cent, of his salary, leaving him a deficit of little more than $300, but 
again turning to the Auditor’s report of fees turned in by the Re¬ 
corder, we find a collection of only 37 per cent., or an average deficit 
of $869; again referring to the State Statistician’s tables it is learned 
that the receipts of the office were 77 per cent, of the salary. It is 
somewhat difficult, from such a showing as this, to learn accurately 
just what the Recorder makes out of his office, but it is the opinion 
of the Commissiin that during his term he has his full salary, and 
after paying $350 to deputies has an average net compensatiou of 
$1,050. 

Of the Auditor’s salary $400 was paid out of fees, the remainder, 
84 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury; paying $1,000 to 
deputies, he had $1,500 net from his salary; to this can be added $350 
for services as C4erk of the County Council. Preceding the date of 
the investigation begun by this Commission, large amounts were paid 
to the former Auditor, A. E. Nowlin, for extra work. He received, 
therefore, $3,000, while David Lostutter, a former Clerk, received 
$2,000 in addition to his salary. There were further payments to W. 
S. Zegler for bringing up Auditor’s index book, $65, and to R. L. 
Miller $50 for bringing up reports of fees, heretofore not fully report¬ 
ed. These amounts are not included in the above table. 







184 


To the Treasurer's salary of $2,100, paid out of the county fund, 
an average of $300 in delinquent fees can be added, leaving him net 
$1,280, after paying $1,120 to deputies. 


DECATUR COUNTY. 

There was an average excess of payment yearly of $2,551 over the 
salary list, the payment out of the treasury being 57.9 per cent, of the 
whole, the distribution of payments being as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

.... $2,300 

$1,900 

$522 

$2,422 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

1,279 

2,457 

3,736 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,400 

150 

2,330 

2,480 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

553 

1,960 

2,513 

Total.... 

$10,000 

$0,282 

$7,269 

$12,551 


The Clerk collected 140 per cent., the yearly excess over his salary 
being $740. He made no report of the taxation of fees, wliich were 
probably 25 per cent, greater. He had an additional compensation for 
recording reports of guardians and administrators, but the amount 
paid therefor was not given the Commission. In his collections was 
included his per diem, and after paying $700 to deputies, he had 
$2,000 net conipensation from fees. His predecessor served under the 
old law, and all oollections thereunder were paid to him direct. He 
had a surplus in the fee fund, .December 1, 1899, of $835, more than 
sufficient to meet one quarter’s salary. 

The Sheriff collected 63.9 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
88.9 per cent., the deficit in taxation being $220, and collection $720. 
This gave him an average compensation from fees of $1,279, out of 
which he paid $400 to deputies, leaving him net $879; in addition, 
of which he made no return to the Auditor, he received his per diem, 
revenue from care of prisoners and turnkey’s fees, which would give 
him a net return from all sources, after paying deputies and expense of 
prisoners, from $2,200 to $2,600. 

Approximating the revenues from this office, we have: 


From fees. $1,279 

Per diem. 500 

Jail. 1,900 

Miscellaneous. 1^0 


Total... $3,829 


The Recorder collected 100 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
106.3 per cent., the excess of the latter being $88; but from the 

















185 


Auditor’s report it is learned he turned into the treasury only 98 per 
cent. He has no deputy, which leaves him his salary net. 

Of the Auditors salary, 90.5 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasur}^, the remainder being covered by $295 in fees; in addition he 
received $150 for making Assessors’ books, giving him a total return 
of $1,850 net, after paying $700 to deputies, out of the total revenue of 
$2,550. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,900, paid out of the county fund, 
$553 from delinquent fees can be added, giving him a total of $2,453. 
After paying $900 to deputies he had $1,550 net, plus $60 for attend¬ 
ing Board of Review, the same amount being allowed the Auditor. 

DEKALB COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list has been $1,745, 
the'payment out of the treasury being 45 per cent, of the whole.' 

These yearly payments were made as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. Counfy Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,400 $2,095 $500 $2,595 

Sheriff. 2,300 1,800 900 2,700 

Recorder. 1,500 1,500 _ 1,500 

Auditor. 2,500 350 2,150 2,600 

Treasurer. 2,100 1,150 2,100 3,250 


Total. $10,800 $6,895 $5,650 $12,545 


The Clerk, M. F. Long, made no report to the Commission, but from 
the Auditor’s report it is ascertained that the Clerk’s collections were 
108.1 per cent, of his salarjq and from the returns of the State Statis¬ 
tician that his collections for 1898 were 142 per cent., including his 
per diem and allowances; after paying about $800 to deputies, he had 
a net salary of $-1,600, his per diem and allowances thereon amounting 
to about $350 to $500 per year. December 1, 1899, there was a surplus 
in the Clerk’s fund amounting to $2,015.93, within $400 of being 
sufficient to pay a year’s salary. 

The Sheriff collected 85.2 per .cent., including per diem, on a taxa¬ 
tion of 133 per cent., the excess of taxation being $759 a year and 
deficit ot collection $300. The Auditor reported that he had no com¬ 
plete record of fees turned in by the Sheriff, but it is evident in the 
course of his time the. officer named collects his full salary, or net 
$1,600 the year, after paying $700 to deputies, to which can be added 
about $300 from the jail. He also had a surplus, December 1, 1899, 
amounting to $382.04, enough to pay a quarter’s salary; but notwith- 









186 


standing this evidence and others indicating that he receives his full 
salary, he said: ^‘The salary is always deficient, simply because the 
fees are not collected/^ He was unable to give the amount of income 
for work done for other counties, as his ^predecessor kept no record of 
it. 

Approximating his yearly revenues from the office, we have: 


From fees.... 
Per diem .... 

Jail. 

Miscellaneous 


11,800 

450 

300 

200 


Total...... $2,750 

The Recorder taxed and collected 161.6 per cent, of his salary, an 
average excess of $925, but the Auditor reported that he turned in 
only 128.3 of his salary from fees collected, or an average excess of 
$424; paying 600 to deputies, he had net $900 per year. This officer 
had a surplus in his fee fund December 1, 1899, amounting to $1,569, 
nearly enough to pay a year and a quarter’s salary. 

To the Auditors salary, fees were applied each year averaging $350, 
the remainder, 86 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury; he 
had net $1,220, after pa}dng $1,280 to deputies. The additional pay¬ 
ments he received for attending Board of Review and County Council 
were not reported; but he showed that December 1, 1899, he had a 
surplus in his fee fund amounting to $706.20. 

To the Treasurers salary of $2,100 an average of $1,150 was added 
from delinquent tax fees, giving him $2,450, after paying $800 to 
deputies. This does not cover the extra amount he receives for attend¬ 
ing Board of Review and interest on deposits. 


DELAAVARE COUNTY. 

The excess of payment to county officers over the salary list, on an 
average, was $5,120 yearly, the payment out of the treasury being 44 
per cent, of the whole. 

The payment was distributed as follows: 

Salary Alloiced. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $3,500 $3,000 $500 $3,500 

Sheriff. 3,000 2,400 2,850 5,250 

Recorder. 2,700 2,700 .... 2,700 

Auditor. 3,700 750 3,010 3,760 

Treasurer. 2,700 2,800 2,760 5,560 


Total. $15,600 $11,650 $9,120 $20,770 















187 


The Clerk collected 121 per cent, on a taxation of 160 per cent., in¬ 
cluding per diem and allowances, the excess of taxation being $2,131 
and collection $T39. The per diem and allowances amounted from $500 
to $600 the year. Paying $800 to deputies he had $2,700 net. Rela¬ 
tive to the work in this office the Clerk submitted a statement as to 
the amount of court, record, civil. State and probate transactions 
made for the past eight years. The civil and State records increased 
from 1,203 pages in 1892 to 1,770 in 1899, and the probate record re¬ 
mained in 1899 about what it was in 1892, with variations for each 
intervening year, from 940 to 639 pages. The collections for his pred¬ 
ecessor were not given, as that officer worked under the old law. 
While the surplus Avas not reported, if any, it is the opinion of the 
C'Omniission that these fees not only meet, through current collections, 
the salar}^ alloAved, but carry from year to year a surplus into the 
Clerk's fund. 

The Sheriff collected 124.5 per cent, out of a taxation of 153 per 
cent., but during the tAvo years covered by this report he Avas paid 50 
per cent, more than Avas due him by his OAvn shoAving. This, evidently, 
Avas due to payments to cover past deficiencies in salary. After paying 
$1,768 to deputies he had net $1,282 out of his fees and per diem. His 
gross income from the jail averaged about $2,200 per year, one-half of 
Avhich Avas profit, thus giving him, outside of all expense, from $2,500 
to $3,000 the year. He collected a considerahle amount for his prede¬ 
cessor, the amount not given. 

Approximating the total reA^enues of this office Ave have: 


From fees. $3,100 

Per diem. 600 

From jail. 2,200 

From miscellaneous. 300 

Total. 16,200 


The Recorder taxed and collected 160 per cent, of his salary, or 
$1,615 in excess; after paying $1,844 to deputies he had net $856 out 
of $2,700 salary. The Recorder, in a letter to the Commission, gave 
a line of information that is applicable to the Recorders’ offices 
throughout the State. He stated: ^^The more work that comes into 
this office the more the salary is decreased, on account of increased ex¬ 
penditure and payment of deputies, and the less Avork the more it is 
increased.” During the Avinter preceding his report he worked at 
night trying to keep up his records and Avas unable to do so. He said 
that if the abstractors and attorneys had been enemies of his they 
could have caused him a great deal of trouble in keeping the Avork up, 
but instead they helped him all they could. 







188 


Eobert W. Monroe, the Auditor, failed to report, but his fees aver¬ 
aged yearly, as reported to the State Statistician, $750, the remainder 
of his salary being paid out of the treasury. He has about $3,000 net 
after meeting the expenses of his office and payment of deputies. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,700, paid out of the treasury, was 
added $2,800 the year in delinquent fees, giving him from $3,100 to 
$3,200 net, after paying $2,000 to deputies. This does not include 
payment of per diem for attending Board of Eeview, nor does it cover 
the interest he received on deposits. 

DUBOIS COUNTY. 


The average yearly payment in excess of the salary list has been 
$2,315, the payment out of the treasury being 52.3 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,100 $2,100 $421 $2,521 

Sheriff. 1,900 1,600 1,874 3,474 

Kecorder. 1,300 1,300 .... 1,300 

Auditor. 2,300 340 2,020 2,360 

Treasurer. 1,700 200 1,760 1,960 


Total. $9,300 $5,540 $6,075 $11,615 


The Clerk reported a taxation and collection for one year, but the 
Auditor showed that that officer turned into the treasury 97 per cent, 
of his salary. The amount paid on salary agreed with the report of the 
Clerk, but the latter’s figures, as to taxation and collection, showed 
only 52 per cent, for the former and 40 per cent, for the latter. Fur¬ 
thermore, he stated that his deficiency had been $300 the year, but it 
is the opinion of the Commission that he about makes his salary out 
of the fees collected; paying $571 to deputies, his net salary is $1,529, 
to which can be added $420 per diem and allowances, which he retains. 
This would give him $1,950 total net. But as to the retention of the 
per diem, there is a conflict of statements between him and the Audi¬ 
tor, the Clerk stating: collect no fees for my own use, that is, I 

report all, even the per diem, to the Auditor.” The Auditor said that 
the Clerk retained his per diem and that the Sheriff did not. The 
Clerk further represented that there is a constant deficiency in his sal¬ 
ary due to a “large amount of fees being uncollectible and that never 
can be collected.” 

Tile Sheriff, on a taxation of 126.3 per cent., or an excess of $500 
over the salary, collected 73.7 per cent., leaving a deficit of $500, but 










189 


the Auditor reported a deficit of only $339, the fees turned in on ac¬ 
count of salary amounting to 82.7 per cent. The Sheriff claimed that 
he was paid at the rate of $1,400 the year, hut the Aiiditor showed 
that that officer had been paid at the rate of $1,600 per year. The pay¬ 
ments to him out of the treasury, including per diem, averaged acco'rd- 
ing to the report of the Auditor, $1,874 the year. Paying $500 to 
deputies and meeting jail expenses he had an average of from $2,100 
to $2,500 the year. 

Relative to the per diem of the Sheiriff there is another conflict with 
the Auditor, the latter stating that the Sheriff pays his per diem into 
the treasury, while that officer claims he does not. 

Approximating the total revenues of the office we have, on an aver¬ 
age, yearly: 


From fees. $1,600 

From per diem. 260 

From jail. 1,600 

From miscellaneous. 150 

Total. $3,610 


The Recorder taxed and collected 94.5 per cent, of his salary. His 
statement agrees with that made by the Auditor. The Recorder about 
makes his salary; less $200 for deputies, he receives net about $1,100 
per year. The Recorders fund was the only one in the county that 
carried a surplus December 1, 1899, that surplus amounting to 
$1,592.85. 

Of the Auditor’s safari^, 84.5 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasur}^, the remainder being covered by $340 from fees. Paying 
$900 to deputies, he had $1,400 net. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,700, paid out of the county treasury, 
was added about $200 in fees from delinquent taxes, an amount that 
about covered h’s deputy hire. 

Concerning the compensation of the various officers of this county, 
the Auditor stated that the Treasurer made more money under the 
law of 1895 than he formerly did, and that the Recorder made about 
the same as he did under the old law, as did the Clerk. He thought 
the Sheriff was badly treated as to mileage for transposing prisoners, 
and further said that with his $1,200 net, under the present law, that 
the Auditor was paid less than formerly, while the work was 33 per 
cent, greater, but to the $1,200 must be added $300 for services as 
Clerk of the County Council. 







190 


ELKHART COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment over the salary list was $2,320, the 
payment out of the treasury being 40 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distrihuted as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. 13,800 $3,800 $500 $4,300 

Sheriff. 3,300 3,300 1,100 4,400 

Recorder. 2,200 2,200 .... 2,200 

Auditor. 3,900 550 3,410 3,960 

Treasurer. 3,000 600 3,060 3,660 


Total. $16,200 $10,450 $8,070 $18,520 


The Clerk of this county went into office a short time previous 
to the creation of this Commission and, therefore, reported a taxation 
and collection of fees covering a few months, hut they were in excess 
of his salary. The Auditor, however, stated that the collections for 
the two years specified in the Clerk’s office had been 116.9 per cent. 
After paying $1,800 to deputies, with per diem and extra allowances in 
addition, the Clerk had a net revenue of $2,500. He also retained for 
service which was not named in the schedule, applicable to bis office, 
50 cents for general indexing of each case, 10 cents per hundred words 
for recording inquests,, and 5 cents for indexing each bond. He was 
also allowed by the County Commissioners the expense of his office 
and any expense ‘That might happen” in connection with his official 
business. 

The Sherifl' collected 94 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 141.6 
per cent., and was paid 100 per cent., the deficit of collection being 
$200 and excess of taxation $1,875, but by the Auditor's report it 
was learned that he turned into the treasury only 62 per cent.; his 
average current collections were about 90 per cent, of his salary. After 
paying $1,000 to deputies he had net $2,300 out of fees; with $450 as 
per diem and $500 from care of jail, and with other incidentals he had 
from $3,000 to $3,300 total net. 

The Sheriff stated that prior to 1897 the fees collected were about 
$1,600 short of the salary, and during the last six months of the two 
years covered by this report, they were about $809 short. He 
retained his ]Der diem under the advice of the Judge of the Circuit 
Court, and attributed his deficiency in fees to an inability to collect 
sufficient to pay the salary. 









191 


Approximating the SlierifT’s total revenues from the diversity of 
statements made, we iiave: 


From fees and payment of deficiencies. $3,300 

Per diem. 450 

Jail. 500 

Miscellaneous... 200 

Total. $4,950 


It also appeairs in the returns to this Commission that the Sheriff’s 
predecessor was allowed $257 ^ffor criminal matters.” 

The Recorder tax(^l and collected 1G4 per cent., or $1,415 in ex¬ 
cess of his salary; paying $1,200 to deputies, he had net $1,000 the 
year. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 86.6 per cent, was pafd out of the county 
treasury, the fees amounting to $550 the year; paying $1,320 to depu¬ 
ties, he had net $2,580. This does not include the amount allowed by 
the County Council for his services tlierewith, wliich was not reported 
to the Commission. 

To the Treasurer s salary of $3,000 was added about $600 the year in 
fees, leaving net $2,240, after paying $1,360 to deputies. This does 
not include the income that he has from use of county funds. 


FAYETTE COUNTY. 

/ 

The average payment to the five county officers over the salary list 
was $634, while the percentage paid out of the county fund was 57.6 
per cent., the payments being distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk . 

$1,700 

$1,560 

$238 

$1,798 

Sheriff. 

1,600 

840 

1,131 

1,971 

Kecorder. 

1,100 

672 


672 

Auditor. 

1,800 

87 

1,796 

1,883 

Treasurer. 

1,500 

370 

1,640 

2,010 

Total.... 

$7,700 

$3,529 

$4,805 

$8,334 


The Clerk collected and was paid 108.7 per cent, of his salary and 
taxed 144.1 per cent., the collections including his per diem. As he 
employed no deputies he liad his salary in full, but stated to the Com¬ 
mission that for the first four years’ service as Clerk he did not make 
his salary. This, no doubt, accounts, as it will in other similar in¬ 
stances, for the excess of payment to him on salary, for the two years 
covered by this report. Tinder these conditions he had, December 1, 
1899, a sur^ffus of $67 in his fund. 















192 


The Sheriff collected, including per diem, 95.3 per cent, of his salary 
on a taxation of 77.7 per cent., and further reported that his deficit 
in collection was $500 the year. On the other hand he stated his net 
salary at $1,100, which was about 69 per cent, of salary allowed by law, 
while his report to the Auditor of fees turned into the treasury gave 
him on collections a salary, paying only 52 per cent., a little over $800 
per year. In addition he bad an average of $850 a year from the jail. 
His total income, irrespective of deputy hire and other expenses, being:' 


From fees. $840 

Per diem. 250 

Jail. 850 

Miscellaneous. 300 

Total. $2,240 


This, less care of jail and other expenses, would leave him total net 
about $1,700. 

The Eecorder collected 61 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
84 per cent., the deficiency of the former being $428 and taxation 
$388. His net returns out of the office was about $700 on a salary of 
$1,100, which latter amount, he stated, could not be made out of the 
fees under the present schedule. . 

The Auditors fees were very small, since the payment of salary out 
of the treasury was 95.2 per cent.; paying $400 to deputies he had 
$1,800 net, and in addition $300 for County Council services and $90 
for attending Board of Eeview. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,500, paid out of the county fund,, 
was added an average of $370 in delinquent fees; paying therefrom 
$650 to deputies, he had $1,220, to which can be added compensation 
for services on Board of Eeview and perquisites naturally arising from 
the business of his office. 

FLOYD COUNTY. 


The average payment over the salary list was $3,210, the payment 
out of the treasury being 61.6 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,800 

$2,120 

$737 

$2,857 

Sheriff. 

2,500 

1,613 

3,810 

5,423 

Eecorder. 

1,700 

950 


950 

Auditor. 

3,000 

450 

2,670 

3,120 

Treasurer. 

2,300 

800 

2,420 

3,220 

Total.... 

$12,300 

$5,933 

$9,637 

$15,570 















193 

The Clerk collected 102 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 129 
per cent., but according to the Auditor was paid only 93.4 per cent. 
There is no reason for any other conclusion than he received his full 
salary in the course of his term, which gave him $1,600 net after pay¬ 
ing $1,200 to deputies. The Clerk said that at the time of his report 
there was a shortage of $369 in his average collections, and that the 
excess of his fees collected, as shown in his repoiid., was due to the fact 
that the collections included his predecessor’s fees and his own collec¬ 
tions for his predecessor. OTe Clerk wrote: ^“^When my predecessor 
went out of office he had collected and received his salary, leaving an 
excess of $4 or $5 in his fund, but on December 1, 1899, there was a 
surplus in the Clerk’s fund of $1,207, within $200 of being sufficient 
to meet two quarters’ salar}^” 

Continuing, the Clerk wrote: ^T)uring the few months I have been 
in office I have collected and turned over to the Treasurer $1,112 for 
my predecessor, which Avould indicate that I will be able to meet my 
salary of $2,800 the year, notwithstanding the fact that there is a 
shortage of $361.20.” As there was nothing due the predecessor, the 
amount collected for him was turned into the treasury, his successor 
getting no benefit from it in making up the deficiency in his salary. 

It further appears that while the Clerk’s collections give him but 
$1,600 net, he states directly to the Commission that his net salary is 
$1,900. This, no doubt, involves the retention of per diem and allow¬ 
ances in addition to payment of salary from fees, notwithstanding the 
Auditor reports that these moneys were paid into the treasury and 
drawn out on salary. 

The Clerk’s statement as to what he did with per diem was somewhat 
ambiguous, as it was to the effect 2that he retained all fees not ordered 
paid into the treasury by the fee and salary law, such as marriage cer¬ 
tificates, fee for distribution and estate in assignments and per cent, 
for making distribution by order of court.” 

The Clerk’s predecessor was paid $334.25 for extra work. 

The Sheriff collected 64.5 per cent, on a taxation of 100 per cent., a 
deficit of $880. After paying $720 to deputies he had net out of cur¬ 
rent collections $893, or a total of $4,603, including payment out of 
the county fund of $3,810, the latter being divided as follows: 


Boarding prisoners. |3,022 

Turnkey’s fees. 370 

Per diem. 418 

Total. 13,810 


IS— F. AND S. Com. 






104 


In a letter to the Connnission the Slieriil* refers to a matter that is 
one of general coni])laint, and illnstrates conditions that exist in all 
other counties AVe (inote: ‘^‘1 had a great deal of work in State cases 
for which. 1 received no fees. We have had State cases where the 
defendants were found not gnilty, and the jury recommended that 
they pay no costs. In regard to the transjmrtation of prisoners and 
insane the Sheriff is recpiired to give bond, and is ])aid three cents j)er 
mile, just enough to pay railroad fare. I luive been informed that 
other Sheriffs have construed the law as allowing them eight cents per 
mile, and claim that has been ai)proved by their County (Vjniniission- 
ers. The mileage of eight cents would have materially aided in 
making up my salary. If the fees taxed could l>e collected they would 
equal the salary, hut, as it is, the fees collected will never pay it in this 
county.'*’ 

A])proxim,ating the total revenues of this office we have: 


From fees. $1,613 

Per diem. 418 

Jail. 3,390 

Miscellaneous. 150 

Total. $5,571 


The Ilecorder collected 55 ])er cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
like amount, causing a deficit of $754. lie ])aid $500 to de])uties 
and had net $446. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 85.4 per cent, was paid by the county, the 
fees averaging $450 the year. x4fter jiaying $900 to deputies he had 
$2,100 net, plus $200 for County Council service and $60 per year, on 
an average, for attending Hoard of Ileview. 

To the Treasurer’s salary was added $800 on the average, in fees, 
giving him $3,140 total, or, after paying deputies $1,812, a net of 
$1,320. This does not include $60 for attending Hoard of Heview or 
perquisites in the line of his official business. 


FOUNT AIN COUNTY. 

d’he excess of payment over the salary list was on the average, 
yearly, $1,765 the imyment out of the treasury being 45.3 per cent, 
of the whole. The iiayments were made as follows: 



/Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,200 

$2,200 

$300 

$2,500 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

2,000 

950 

2,950 

Recorder. 

1,500 

1,500 


1,500 

Auditor. 

2,400 

225 

2,175 

2,400 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

515 

1,900 

2,415 

Total. . .. 

$10,000 

$6,440 

$5,325 

$11,765 















195 


The Clerk reported that he was receiving his salary, in full, out of 
his own collections and those of his predecessor’s. He gave no figures 
beyond four months of the time covered by this report, but the 
Auditor showed that during the two years under consideration the 
■Clerk turned in fees amounting to only 87.7 per cent, of his salary, the 
deficit averaging $220 the year. This was outside of per diem and 
allowances and predecessor’s fees, the per diem amounting to alwut 
$300 the year; receiving his salary in full and paying $1,180 to depu¬ 
ties gave him net about $1,300. In addition his predecessor was 
allowed $235 for indexing. 

The Sheriff collected 95 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 125 
per cent., the excess of the latter averaging $500 the year. On the 
other hand the Auditor showed that the Sheriff was paid his full sal¬ 
ary, and that the collections were 108.5 per cent., with an excess of 
$171 per year. He paid $1,360 to deputies, leaving $710 net. His per 
diem from the Commissioners and Circuit Court averaged about $400 
the year, and his jail resources $500, which would bring his total 
average net salary up to $1,600 per year. In addition he collected 
$150 in foreign fees, of which he made no return to the Auditor. 

Approximating the total revenues of the Sheriff’s office we have, 
yearly: 


From fee?. $2,0C0 

Per diem. 400 

Jail. 500 

Miscellaneous. 200 

Total. $3,100 


The Eecorder taxed 123.3 per cent, of his salary and collected 122.1 
per cent., the excess being $400 and $325, respectively. He paid $400 
to deputies, and had a net income of $1,100, in addition to which he 
received a small amount for certifying copies of record. 

The Auditor had an average of $225 in fees, the payment to him 
■out of the treasury being 90.25 per cent. Paying $900 to deputies he 
had a net salary of $1,500 per year. His predecessor was allowed by 
the County Commissioners $200 per year for expense of office. 

To the Treasurer was paid $1,900 from the county fund, to which 
lie added $515 from delinquent tax fees. He paid $1,340 to deputies, 
leaving him about $1,100 average net. 

In addition the Auditor and Treasurer were paid $60 each for at¬ 
tending the Board of Eeview. It appears from reports that up 
to, and including 1897, the Auditor and Treasurer were paid an excess 
of salary under contract with the County Commissioners. This excess 
-was paid for wliat are called ''extra services,” but after the date men- 







196 


tioned the Co'unty C'oiiiiiiissioiiers discontinued the contract and 
refused to alloAV anything extra to any of the county officers. Part of 
the extra work of the Auditor, from March J, 1897, to March 1, 1899, 
was an investigation of the school fund, which was found to be in 
bad condition. The Auditor recovered $1,100 thereon, and in the 
course of his work re-indexed all the school fund mortgages. In 
pursuing his investigation he employed an attorney, whose fees of $150 
were allowed, but the Commissioners refused, although the work was 
done under their direction, to allow anything to the Auditor. The 
bad condition of the school fund was due, the Auditor said, to previous 
neglectful administration of the office. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY. 

The average yearly payment over the salary list was $1,251, the per¬ 
centage paid out of the county fund being about about 53 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Alloived. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk..... $1,900 $1,900 $230 $2,130 

Sheriff..... 1,900 1,600 1,431 3,031 

Recorder. 1,500 800 . 800 

Auditor. 2,100 150 2,145 2,295 

Treasurer. 1,600 375 1,620 1,995 


Total. $9,000 $4,825 $5,426 $10,251 


For some years the Clerk of this county was behind in his salary, 
but at the time of reporting to the Commission was covering the 
deficiency, as h.e was collecting at the rate of 108.3 per cent., with $360 
still due him on account of previous deficiencies, but the taxation of 
fees, during the two years covered by this report, had been only 104 
per cent, of his salary. He turned all liis fees into the treasury, and 
as he employed no deputies he netted his full salary from that source, 
in addition to which he retained the per diem of $230 per year, giving 
him $2,130 net. The average of $230 paid to the Clerk out of the 
county found included per diem, insanity fees, and compensation for 
election services. 

The Sheriff taxed about 100 per cent, of his salary, and collected 
only 84.2 per cent. This agrees with the figures submitted to the 
Commission, showing his collections turned into the treasury, but 
from the incidentals, such as per diem and care of prisoners, he had an 
average payment out of the treasury of $1,431, which, after paying 
deputies and expense of jail, gave him net from $2,000 to $2,400. 

Included in payment to him out of the county fund, in addition to 










197 


per diem and care of jail and prisoners, Avere baili^f^s fees, election 
service and attendance on the Board of RevieAv. The whole making 
the revenues of his office approximately: 


From fees. 


Per diem and allowances. 


Care of prisoners. 

. .^00 

Miscellaneous. 


Total. 



The Sheriff complained that there Avas too much unprofitable busi¬ 
ness for him to make his salary in full from fees collected. 

The Recorder taxed 61.2 per cent, and collected 59.5 per cent, of 
his salary. Having no deputies, his average return from the office Avas 
about $800 the year, tO' Avhich was added from $75 to $100 for taking 
acknoAvledgments, Avriting deeds, etc. 

To the Auditor’s salary Av^as applied about $150 from fees and 93 per 
cent, from the county fund. Paying $600 to deputies he had a net 
salary of $1,500, and in addition he Avas paid for attendance on the 
Board of EevieAV and Gravel Road Directors, amounting to $135 the 
year, and Avas alloAved by the County Council $300 for his services 
as-Clerk thereof. 

The Auditor stated that he had a claim pending before the Board of 
County Commissioners for three years’ services as Clerk of the 
Gravel Road Directors amounting to $150 the year, or $450 in all. He 
also had another for putting description of real estate on Assessor’s 
books and for making Commissioner’s report for three years. The 
County Commissioners had made no alloAvance for these claims, but 
the Auditor said: ‘^‘^Most of the Auditors of the State receive pay for 
these items, and I think I am entitled to them.” 

In addition to $1,600 salary from the county fund, the Treasurer 
had an average of $375 in delinquent tax fees. After paying $100 to 
deputies, he had a net compensation of $1,875. 

The only officer’s fund in this county showing a surplus, Decem¬ 
ber 1, 1899, Avas that of the Auditor, the surplus thereon amounting 
to $435.50. 


FULTON COUNTY. 


There Avas an average excess of payment over the salary list of 
$1,900, the payment out of the treasury being 46.4 per cent, of the 
Avhole. 







198 


The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Cierk . 

$1,900 

$1,900 

$200 

$2,100 

Sheriff. 

1,900 

1,900 

750 

2,650 

Recorder. 

1,200 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor. 

. .. 2,000 

376 

2,364 

2,740 

Treasurer. 

1,600 

300 

1,600 

1,900 

Total.... 

$8,600 

$5,676 

$4,914 

$10,590 


The Clerk collected 108.4 per cent, on a taxation of 121.6 per cent, 
of his salai*}^, the excess being $160 per year for collections and $410 
for taxation; but the Auditor reported $127 deficit in salary, with col¬ 
lections $267 more than was sufficient to meet it. After paying $900 
to deputies he had net $1,000, which, with $200 average per diem and 
allowances, gave him $1,200. In addition to his own collections the 
Clerk collected $438.33 for his predecessor. 

Ed. S. Fultz, Sheriff, gave very little information that was of use to 
the Commission, since to all questions relating to fees he replied ‘‘1 
do not know.’^ But the office is self-sustaining, as the Auditor’s report 
showed, from which it was learned that the collection and payment of 
salary had been 112 per cent., the excess of payment being $228 per 
year during the period covered by this report. This excess was, no 
doubt, caused by past deficiencies. The Sheriff has net about $1,200 
out of fees collected and about $750 in addition from per diem and 
care of prisoners, which, with other incidentals, would give him a net 
return of about $2,100 per year. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 158.8 per cent, of his salary. As 
he paid nothing to deputies, h.e had net his full salar}q amounting to 
$ 1 , 200 . 

The Auditor was paid 86.2 per cent, out of the county fund, the 
yearly average of fees applied to his salary being $376. In addition to 
the amount set forth in the above table, relative to the Auditor, during 
the two years covered by this investigation, the County Commissioners 
paid him $418.41 ^hinder order of contract” for making assessors’ 
books with all descriptions of real estate and values, and also for con-' 
tinning the plat book system of the county, and, further, for making 
complete record of Commissioners’ Court sitting as Ditch Commis¬ 
sioners. 

To the Treasurer was paid $1,600 from the county fund, to which he 
added an average of $300 in delinquent fees. After paying to deputies 
$750 he had an average net of $1,150. 









199 


GIBSON COUNTY. 

The yearly excess of payment over the salary list was $2,894, the 
payment ont of the treasury being about 44 per cent, of the whole. 
The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed, Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. S2,400 $2,400 $250 $2,650 

Sheriff. 2,400 1,700 1,624 3,324 

Recorder. 1,600 1,600 . 1,600 

Auditor. 2,500 300 2,260 2,560 

Treasurer. 2,100 1,600 2,160 3,760 

Total. $11,000 $7,600 $6,294 $13,894 


The Clerk collected 109.7 per cent., or an average excess of $233 
-yearl}^, on a taxation of 155.6 per cent., or an average excess of 
$1,336. He retained his per diem, which, with other court allowances, 
gave him $250 additional per year, or a total compensation of $2,650, 
or net, after paying $1,100 to deputies, $1,500 the year. Relative 
to the work in his office, the Clerk reported, among other things, a 
marked increase in ditch petitions and record work, the latter being 
25 per cent, more at the time of making the report than during the 
two preceding years. He complained of the increase in change of 
venue cases, his county receiving more than it was sending away. He 
also complained of making pension vouchers. While he was collect¬ 
ing his salary under lus own taxation, he received $1,200 for his pred¬ 
ecessor. He retained his per diem under agreement with the County 
Commissioners, and December 1, 1899, had a surplus in his fund of 
$761.51, more than enough to meet a quarter’s salar}^ 

The Sheriff collected 70.3 per cent., or $710 deficit on a taxation of 
141.3 per cent., or $1,000 excess. The Auditor made no return of 
fees collected by the Sheriff, or payment of salary thereon; the Sheriff’s 
collections, therefore, by his own showing, have left him only $500; 
after paying $1,200 to deputies. But he has in per diem and care of 
prisoners from $1,200 to $1,624 additional each year, giving him a 
total net compensation of from $1,700 to $2,100, or, in the event of a 
full collection, from $2,400 to $2,800. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office, irrespective of pay¬ 
ment of deputies or expense of jail, we have: 


From fees. $1,700 

Per diem. 350 

Jail.-. 1,300 

Miscellaneous.;. 250 

Total. $3,600 














200 


Tlie ]iccoT(ler collected 122.4 per cent, on a taxation of 145 per 
cent., the excess being $359 and $719 respectivel}^ Faying $800 to 
deputies, he had $800 net. 

To the Auditor’s salary about $300 average per year was applied in 
fees, the remainder, 88 per cent., being paid, out of the county fund. 
Paying $1,200 to deputies, he had net, out of this resource, $1,300 
per year, and in addition $500 for services as County Council Clerk 
and $3 per diem for attendance on the Board of Review. 

To the Treasurers salary of $2,100, paid out of the county fund, an 
average of $1,G00 from delinquent tax fees was added. Paying $1,050 
to deputies, he had net $2,650, and in addition interest on deposits, 
with $3 per day for attending Board of Review. 


GRANT COUNTY. 

The yearly excess of payment was $9^914 over the salary list, the 
payment out of the treasury being 49 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were: 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 

Clerk. $1,200 $4,200 $700 $4,900 

Sheriff. 3,800 3,800 5,032 8,832 

Recorder. 3,300 3,300 . 3,300 

Auditor. 4,500 1,215 5,061 6,276 

Treasurer. 2,800 2,346 2,860 5,206 


Total.’. $18,600 $14,861 $13,653 $28,514 

The Clerk collected 117.8 per cent, of his salary, or an excess of 
$1,215 on a taxation of 216.2 per cent., or an excess of $4,882. In 
addition he retained his per diem and court allowances, amounting to 
$700. His total coinpensiation was $4,900 the year, out of which he 
paid $2,000 to deputies, leaving him net $2,900. He collected $2,080 
for his predecessor. He presented a claim, during the two years cov¬ 
ered by this report, of $1,921 for election expenses, indexing records, 
insanity fees and court allowances, but of this $158 for indexing was 
alone allowed. 

The Sheriff collected 104.5 per cent., or $932 in excess, on a taxa¬ 
tion of 168.3 per cent., giving an excess of $2,594. He paid $1,120 to 
deputies, giving him a net of $2,680 out of fees collected. With an ad¬ 
dition of $5,032 for jail, including care of prisoners and per diem, he 
had, irrespective of dejmty hire, a total yearly payment of $8,832, less 
care of jail, a net of about $5,000. In addition he claimed $912 for 
allowances which were not allowed; he also received compensation for 
serving juries. 









201 


Approximating tlie total revenues from this office, we have: 


From fees. 

Per diem. 

Care of prisoners 
Miscellaneous.. . 

Total. 


14,700 

700 

4,300 

500 

$10,200 


The Recorder collected 167.2 per cent., and out of his salary he had 
$1,700 net after paying $1,600 to deputies. He received $346 for 
furnishing copies of gas leases and other instruments, giving him a 
total net of $2,000 per annum. 

To the Auditor’s salary $1,215 in fees was applied, leaving 73 per 
cent, to be paid out of the county treasury. He was allowed $1,716 
for extra work, and had net $3,188 out of his total income, after paying 
$2,000 to deputies. This does not include attendance on Board of 
Review and $600 for County Council service, the extra work of making 
up Assessor’s books and statements and reports of County Commis¬ 
sioners and for attending special sessions of that Board, together with 
the expense of posting delinquent notices. 

With $2,800 out of the county treasury and $2,340 from delinquent 
tax fees, after, paying $1,950 to deputies, the Treasurer had $3,196 
net. The Treasurer was also allowed a claim of $2,271 for collecting 
insolvent taxes, indexing gravel roads and ditch records in owner’s 
name and for ditch construction fees. He also received compensation 
for attending the Board of Review and interest on daily balances. 


GREENE COUNTY. 


The yearly excess of payment to county officers over their salary 
list averaged about $2,250, the payment out of the treasury being 
42.5 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk . 

$2,400 

$2,400 

$250 

$2,650 

Sheriff. 

2,200 

2,200 

1,000 

3,200 

Recorder. 

b'500 

1,500 


1,500 

Auditor. 

2,600 

400 

2,200 

2,600 

Treasurer. 

2,200 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

Total.... 

$10,900 

$7,500 

$5,450 

$12,950 


Joseph W. Yakey, Clerk of this county, failed to report, but it is 
learned from the Auditor that his collections were 82 per cent, of his 
salary, a deficit of $432; and from the State Statistician’s tables 89. per 















202 


cent., or a deficit of $250. The taxation, no doubt, largely exceeded 
his salary, and in the course of liis term he received the full amount 
due him of $2,400 per year. AVith per diem of $250 additional, he re¬ 
ceived $2,650, or net about $2,000. 

The Sheriff, on a taxation of 189 per cent., or $862 in excess, col¬ 
lected and. was paid 73.7 per cent., or $578 yearly deficit. The 
Auditor's report, however, showed that he turned into the fee fund 
only 69.4 per cent, and was paid 100 per cent. The State Statistician 
gave his receipts at 86 per cent. He is, no doubt, making his full 
salary out of fees collected, and after paying $1,100 to deputies he has 
$1,100 net. AATtli $1,000 additional income from per diem and board¬ 
ing prisoners, he has a net compensation of from $2,100 to $2,200. 

The Sheriff complains of his difficulty in collections as coming from 
the issuing of no fee bills. 

Approximating the total revenues from this office we have; 


From fecF. $2,200 

From per diem. 400 

From jail. 600 

Miscellaneous. 250 


Total.•. $3,450 


The Itecorder taxed and collected 151 per cent, of his salary and 
turned into the fee fund, according to the Auditor, 131.7 per cent. 
The excess being $765 on his own showing, and on that of the Auditor, 
$476. He had a net compensation of $1,200, after paying $300 to 
deputies. 

To the Auditor's salary about $400 the year in fees was applied, 
leaving 85 per cent, to be paid out of the county treasury. Paying an 
average of $1,000 to deputies, he had $1,600 net. 

The Treasurer received $2,000 out of the county fund on salary, and 
an average of $1,000 from delinquent tax fees. Paying $700 to depu¬ 
ties, he had net $2,300 the year. 

In the Auditor’s and Treasurer’s account are not included the extras 
the two received for attending Board of Eeview, nor the amount paid 
the Auditor as Clerk of County Council, nor interest on deposits that 
came to the Treasurer. 


HAMILTON COUNTY. 

The average payment to the county officers exceeded the salary list 
by $2,137, the percentage of payment out of the treasury being 53.4 
per cent. 








203 


The payments were as follows: 

S dary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,700 $2,316 $459 $2,775 

Sheriff. 2,500 1,500 ],833 3,33S 

Recorder. 1,900 1,900 9 1,909 

Auditor. 3,000 200 3,160 3,360 

Treasurer. 2,200 800 2,260 3,060 

Total. $12,300 $6,716 $7,721 $14,437 


The Clerk taxed 160 per cent, of his salary, or yearly excess of 
$1,600, and collected 123.6 per cent., including per diem,, or an excess 
of $637. 

In making up past deficiencies on salary the Auditor showed that 
the Clerk was paid 116.3 per cent, of his salary, or $883 more than his 
salary for two years. He realized about $1,600 out of his salary of 
$2,700 after paying from $1,100 to $1,200 deputy hire. December 1,. 
1899, there was a surplus in the Clerk’s fund of $993.86, all of which 
were collections by his predecessor, and who, for his immediate prede¬ 
cessor, had colfected $1,752. 

An item of interest applicable to all Clerks, and other elective offi¬ 
cers serving under the fee and salary system, was noted by the Clerk of 
Hamilton County, who said that during the first two years of his term 
the fees collected did not at all equal his salary, but during the last 
two years the fees taxed earlier had been coming in and were equaliz¬ 
ing the salar}^; another point, applicable to many other counties, he 
referred to, was the fact that he was elected one year previous to his 
taking office, and that it was a great burden on him to carry the neces¬ 
sary expenses of election and wait two years before he could collect 
sufficient fees to pay his salary under the law. His per diem and 
allowances averaged about $459 the year, $299 being per diem, $57 
for expense and $105 for other allowances. 

The Sheriff, on a taxation of 138.6 per cent., or $958 in excess of 
salary, collected 95.4 per cent., including per diem, or $113 per year 
deficit, but the Auditor reported that he turned in and was i^aid 97.7 
per cent., while the State Statistician’s tables gave receipts at the rate 
of 106.4 per cent. The Sheriff, no doubt, realizes his full salary, and 
after payment of deputies has $900, to which can be added an average 
of $1,733 a year, as incidental revenue, giving him a total of $2,633. 
These incidentals, payable out of the treasury, were divided as follows: 


Per diem Circuit Court. $299 

Per diem County Commissioners. 107 

Allowed by Board of Ditches and Highways. 114 

For boarding prisoners and turnkeys’ fees. 1,263 


Total. $1,783 













204 


The Slierifi; complained that his deficiency in collection of fees was 
due to divorce and State cases, and a large percentage of civil cases, 
the costs of which were not paid. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office, we have on an 
average: 


From fees.... 

Per diem. 

Jail. 

Miscellaneous 


$2,500 

516 

1,263 

500 


Total. $4,779 

The llecorder taxed and collected 153.6 per cent, of his salary, the 
average excess being $1,013. After paying about $1,000 to deputies, 
he had $900 net return, or about $1,000 with incidentals, in making 
abstracts and certifying copies. 

Deoemher 1, 1899, the Recorder had a surplus in his fund of $2,982, 
more than enough to pay his salary for a year and a half. 

To the Auditor’s salar}^ was applied $200 in fees on the average, 
leaving 94.1 per cent, to he paid out of the county treasury. He had 
$1,700 net from his fees after paying $1,300 to deputies, and in addi¬ 
tion the County Council allowed him $400 for services attending 
that Board and he received $3.00 per day for attending Board of Re¬ 
view. In this office an outside party was employed for $127 to make a 
new ditch index and new plats. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,200 an average of $800 in delinquent 
fees was added, giving him a net compensation of $2,000, after paying 
$1,000 to deputies. In addition he received per diem for attending 
Board of Review and interest on daily balances. 


HANCOCK COUNTY. 


The reports from this county were not as full as desired, nor do the 
figures available show the exact condition relative to fees and salaries 
therein. There has been much investigation and litigation concerning 
extra work, the claims of officers and the payments thereon, hut the 
figures the Commission has show that on an average payments in the 
aggregate were $146 less than the salary list, under favorable condi¬ 
tions, and that the i>ayment out of the treasury was 55.1 per cent, of 
the whole; the payments being distributed as follows: 








205 


Clerk . 

Salary Allowed. 
$2,100 

Fees. 

$1,700 

County Fund. 
$400 

Total. 

$2,100 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

602 

934 

1,536 

Recorder. 

. 1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,200 

300 

1,900 

2,200 

Treasurer. 

_ 1,800 

440 

1,800 

2,240 

Total .... 

$9,500 

$4,442 

$5,034 

$9,476 


The Clerk collected, including per diem and allowances, 115.5 per 
cent, on taxation of 154.4 per cent., the averege yearly excess being 
$325 and $1,142 respectively. He paid $800 to deputies, leaving him 
$1,500 net. On December 1, 1899, he had a surplus in his fund of 
$3,928. This surplus was sufficient to meet the salary for a year and a 
half. 

The Sheriff reported that he had collected only 51.1 per cent, of 
his salary, including per diem of about $500, to meet a salary of 
$2,000. These figures are sustained by the reports of the Sheriff to 
the Auditor and to the State Statistician. He told the Commission 
that he could not give all the information desired on account of the 
unsatisfactory condition of his predecessor’s books. He paid to depu¬ 
ties $547, leaving him net about $555 orit of fees collected, and with 
the care of prisoners and other incidentals, a total of about $2,000. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 123.7 per cent, of his salary. 
He had no deputies and, therefore, realized the full amount allowed 
him by law, $1,400. December 1, 1899, he had a surplus in his fund 
of $2,463, within one quarter’s fees of being sufficient to pay two 
years’ salary. 

To the Auditor’s salary the fees were not applied, they being paid 
directly into the treasury, 100 per cent, of the salary being paid from 
the county fund. Paying $650 to deputies, he had net $1,550, to 
which can be added $200 for services as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800, paid out of the county fund, 
$440 on an average was added from delinquent tax fees, giving him a 
total return of $2,240, or a net of $490, after paying $750 to deputies; 
these figures are irrespective of interest on funds. 


HARRISON COUNTY. 


The payments aggregated $280 less than the salary list, the pay¬ 
ment out of the treasury being 47.5 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 









200 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,100 

$1,688 

$112 

$1,800 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

800 

400 

1,200 

Recorder. 

1,200 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor. 

2,300 

400 

1,960 

2,360 

Treasurer. 

1,800 

7c0 

1,860 

2,560 

Total . ... 

$9,400 

$4,788 

$4,332 

$9,120 


Otto Ciiniiiiighani, Clerk, failed to report, but from the Auditor’s 
returns to the Commission, we find that he turned in, during the two 
years covered l)y this investigation, on an average of 85.5 per cent, 
of his salary, or $300 deficit, giving him about $1,800 the year, or an 
average of $1,200 to $1,500 net. His collections included per diem 
and allowances which were paid into the treasury and drawm back on 
salary. 

The same condition existed as to the Sheriff's fees, who reported no 
taxation but a collection of 52.5 per cent. The Auditor reported, 
however, only a collection of 49.5 per cent, and the same amount paid 
thereon, l:he deficit being $999 in one instance and the other $1,100, 
.ghdng him a salary of about $1,000 per year, out of which he paid 
$2C0 to deputies, leaving him $800, with about $-100 from i>risoners 
and turnkeys’ fees. 

As an illustration of the methods of taxation pursued by the greater 
number of Sheriffs over the State, we c|uote from a letter to the Com¬ 
mission by the Sherifi' of Harrison County to the effect: am unable 

to give the information concerning taxation, because the fees taxed 
were noted on the subpoenas only and were not transferred to the 
fee books until the court adjourned. Only the fees that are good are 
taken, because there is only one out of a dozen State cases that is 
profitable, and a large amount of fees in civil cases are not collectible 
because the litigants are insolvent.” 

The Recorder taxed and collected 110.4 per cent., the excess of col¬ 
lection amounting to $125; paying $300 to deputies, he had $900; and 
yet, with this favorable showing of collection, no surplus was reported 
to us by the Auditor, nor was there an existing surplus in any of the 
funds of this county. 

To the Auditor’s salary $4,000 in fees was applied, leaving 83.7 
per cent, to be paid out of the county fund; paying $1,100 to deputies, 
he had net $1,200, jfius $300 for services as Clerk of the County Coun¬ 
cil, and $60 the year for attending Board of Review. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800 an average of $700 in fees was 
added: paying $550 to deputies, he had net $1,950 and in addition $60 
for attending Board of Review and other perquisites not given. 










207 


HENI)RI CKS C OV^TY. 


AVilliaiii P). Nicholls, Auditor, was the only one of the five officers 
to report to the Coininission, the delinquents being J\Ielvin C. Mastin, 
Clerk; Win. T. AVilson, Pecorder; Henry L P>aton, Sheriff, and 0. H. 
Piersol, Treasurer; but the Commission has had such figures at its 
command to show that the aggregate 2 >ayment to these county officers 
averaged $1,059 more than the salar}^ list, the payment out of the 
treasury being about 51 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 


Clerk . 

Salary Allowed. 
$2,200 

Fees. 

$1,800 

County Fund. 
$400 

Total. 

$2,200 

Sheriff. 

2-,100 

1,516 

843 

2,359 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,500 

200 

2,440 

2,640 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

600 

1,960 

2,560 

Total .... 

$10,100 

$0,516 

$5,643 

$11,159 


From the Auditor’s report it was shown the Commission that the 
Clerk turned in 113 per cent, of his salary, including his per diem, or 
an excess of $285. He had net out of his fees about $1,600. 

The Sheriff collected 72.2 per cent, of his salary, the deficit being 
about $600. Out of his total returns he has a net compensation of 
from $1,600 to $1,800. 

The Pecorder collected 108.1 per cent, of his salary, with an excess 
of $114, while the reports of receipts to the State Statistician gave a 
collection of 120.4, $286 excess. After paying $400 to deputies, he 
realized about $1,100 net. December 1, 1899, he had a surplus in his 
fund of $551.25, while there was in the Clerk’s fund $405.97. 

iSTinety-four and five-tenths per cent, of the salary of the Auditor 
was paid out of the county fund, the fees averaging about $140 the 
year. 

During the two years covered by this rcqiort, the Auditor was paid in 
addition $280 for making Assessor’s books, while there was allowed 
the Clerk $190 for indexing marriage licenses. The Auditor received 
in addition $150 as Clerk of the Turnpike Board and $69 for attend¬ 
ing Board of Peview; exclusive of these amounts he had $1,750 net, 
after paying $750 to deputies. 

T^ie delinquent tax fees increased the Treasurers salary of $1,900 
to about $2,900. 










208 


HENRY COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list was $1,160, the 
payment out of the treasury being 50.4 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 

S'jlary Allotved. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,600 $2,300 $300 $2,600 

Sheriff. 2,200 1,200 1,250 2,450 

Recorder. 1,700 1,700 175 1,875 

Auditor. 2,600 350 2,325 2,675 

Treasurer. 2,100 600 2,160 2,760 

Total. $11,200 $6,150 $6,210 $12,360 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 125.9 per cent, of his sal¬ 
ary, or an average excess of $673, the taxation being 146.6 per cent., 
or an average excess of $1,212. After paying $545 to deputies he had 
net $2,025. On December 1, 1899, he had a surplus in his fund of 
$1,462, more than enough to pay a half year’s salary. While he was 
thus meeting his salary from his own taxation, he collected $1,354.55 
for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff reported no taxation, but a collection of 63.7 per cent., 
with a deficit of $800 in his salary, but by the Auditor’s figures in the 
hands of this Commission it was shown that he turned fees into the 
treasury of only 42 per cent., while the receipts reported by the Sheriff 
to the State Statistician were 84.2 per cent. From these conflicting 
statements it is the opinion of the Commission that the collections 
of the Sheriff were about 70 per cent, of his salar}^ which would give 
him between $1,500 to $1,600 per year, including per diem which 
he turns in with his fees, amounting to $600 more. After paying 
$600 to deputies, he receives about $1,600 total average net compen¬ 
sation from fees. 

We quote from a letter addressed to the Commission by the Sheriff 
which is in keeping with many complaints of like character from Sher¬ 
iffs of other counties: ^Tt is unfair legislation,” he vTote, ^To elect 
to office a man to do work for those only who have disputes and differ¬ 
ences with the neighbors in our courts, and then collect from them to 
pay all the officers of the county and have a large surplus to turn over 
into the general fund, to lessen the burdens of those who never have 
any business in the courts and for which it never cost them a farthing. 
The deficit in my salary on collection of fees averaged about $200 per 
quarter for the past two years, but the taxation of fees for the Clerk, 
Eecorder and Sheriff amounts to more than enough to pay the officers 
named each quarter and leave a surplus in the Treasurer’s hands 
amounting to over $500, but the Sheriff’s hands are tied so far as col- 








'209 


locting fees are concerned, except as fee "bills are turned in by the 
Clerk, sixty days after rendition of judgment. The Clerk receives 
enough fees to pay his salary each quarter; consequently he does not 
feel the impulse of duty required him to issue feebills. The argu¬ 
ment of the Sheriff is, that this condition of affairs could be remedied 
if the County Commissioners were allowed, or would equalize the 
salaries by meeting deficiencies out of the surplus fees. If this was 
done the Clerk, Eecorder and Sheriff would alike feel the responsi¬ 
bility of collection, especially when they were falling short in their 
salaries.^^ 

Approximating the yearly returns of this officer we have: 


From fees. $1,600 

From per diem. 600 

Jail. 850 

Miscellaneous. 250 


Total. $3,300 


The Recorder taxed and collected 127.8 per cent, of his salary, an 
excess of $473 yearly. He received $350 for indexing, thus increasing 
his salary that amount, giving him $1,875 yearly, out of which he paid 
$678 to deputies, his net salary being $1,147. 

To the Auditor's salary, $350 on the average in fees was applied, 
leaving 86.7 per cent, to be paid out of the county fund. After paying 
$1,300 to deputies, he had net $1,300, and in addition $300 for services 
as Clerk of the County Council and $75 as Clerk of the Turnpike 
Board, the latter amount being paid to one of the deputies in his office 
who did the work. 

To tlie Treasurer’s salary an average of $1,600 in delinquent fees 
was added, giving him a total of $2,700, or a net of nerly $1,900 after 
paying $800 to deputies. This does not include his perquisites of 
office. 

IIOAVAKD COUNTY. 

The excess of pa 3 unent to county officers averaged $2,560 over the 
salary list, the payment out of the treasury being about 45.1 per cent, 
of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fur.d. Total. 


Clerk. $2,700 $1,950 $1,000. $2,950 

Sheriff.. 2,600 2,600 1,100 3,700 

Recorder. .V.. 1,900 1,900 75 1,975 

Auditor. 3,000 655 2,380 3,035 

Treasurer. 2,200 1,100 2,200 3,300 

Total. $12,400 $8,205 $6,755 $14,960 


If—F. AND S. Com. 














210 


Tlie (’lerk collected 100 per cent, of his salary, including ])er diem 
and allowances, an a taxation of 124 per cent., the excess of taxation 
being $057 the year. He paid $1,000 to deputies and had $1,700 net 
salary, to which can be added allowances auioiinting to $250 the year. 
While making his own salary he collected $2,035 for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff collected 70.8 per cent, of his salary, or a deficit of 
$705, on a taxation of 80.5 per cent.. or> a deficit of $350; but the 
Auditor showed that the Sheriff collected and, tunied into the fee 
fund 91.7 per cent. It is the opinion of the Coinmissio]! that in course 
of his term he has a full salary from fees and per diem. Paying $1,100 
to deputies, he has net, under these conditions, $1,500, with about 
$1,100 for incidentals from jail and other sources, giving him $3,700 
total revenue, or total net of $2,fi00. 

The Recorder collected and taxed from 148 per cent, to 151 per 
cent, of his salary, the excess being from $900 to $1,000. Paying $800 
to deputies, he had $1,100 net salary, to which was added $350 for 
indexing. 

Of the Auditor’s salary, 78.2 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees averaging $(>55 the year. Paying $1,500 to deputies, he 
had $1,500 net. He was paid $35 for copying school fund ledger, and 
for making Coinmissioner’s annual receipts of expenditures and report 
of school fund for Superintendent of Public Instruction. The deputy 
County Auditor claimed $100 the year for making Assessor’s books, 
but the County Commissioners did not allow it. 

Relative to the Auditor’s and Treasurer’s salary of this county, 
which applies with greater or less force to all the county officers of 
the State, the Auditor stated that the Treasurer received more than 
double the com])ensation of the Auditor from various sources, and did 
less work. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,200 was added an average of $1,100 
in delinquent fees, giving him $2,600 net out of this revenue after 
paying $700 to deputies. This does not include his perquisites of 
office referred to by the Auditor. 

HUNTINGTON COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment in this county over the salary list 
was $2,310, tlie payment out of the treasury being 45.3 per cent, of the 
whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 


211 


Clerk . 

Sheriff. .. 
Recorder. 
Auditor.. 
Treasurer 


Total 


Salary Allowed 
$2,700 
2,600 
1,800 
2,900 

2,200 

$ 12,200 


Fees. 

$2,100 

2,160 

1,800 

500 

1,500 

$8,060 


County Fund. 
$600 

1,200 

2,450 

2,200 

*6,450 


Total. 

$2,700 

3,360 

1,800 

2,950 

3,700 

$14,510 


The Clerk collected, on a kxation of 165 per cent., 127.8 per cent, of 
his salary, hut in addition he had an average of $600 per diem and 
allowances, which he turned into the fee fund and drew out on salary, 
the excess in fees heing $1,761 in taxation, or $2,361 including per 
diem; the excess of collection $752, or with per diem, $1,352. After 
paying $1,196 to deputies he had $1,504 net compensation. He col¬ 
lected $2,450 for his predecessor and had $1,186 surplus in his fund 
December 1, 1899. 

The Sheriff collected 108 per cent., including per diem, or $158 ex¬ 
cess of collection on a taxation of 186 per cent., or an excess of $2,248. 
As shown by the Auditor’s report he turned into the fee fund 115 per 
cent, and was paid his full salary, of which he paid $800 to deputies, 
leaving him $1,800 net, or with incidentals, a net of from $2,500 to 
$3,200. December 1, 1899, he had a surplus in his fund of $453. 

An approximation of the revenues from this office shows profitable 
returns. 


From fees. 

Per diem. 

Jail. 

Miscellaneous. 


$2,4f0 

500 

1,600 

350 


Total. $4,850 

The Recorder taxed and collected 133.2 per cent, of his salary, or 
$598 excess. He turned into the fee fund 129.1 per cent., as shown 
by the Auditor’s report. After paying $600 to deputies he had $1,200 
net. 

Of the Auditor’s salary, 82.9 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees averaging about $500 per year. After paying $1,400 to 
deputies he had net $1,500, and in addition $50 from the Board of Re¬ 
view and $250 from County Council. Tn addition to the above pay¬ 
ments made out of the county fund the Auditor reported that $135 was 
paid to him for copying tax sale register and $100 to the Recorder for 
copying record and $200 to tlie Surveyor for copying record of sim^eys. 

To the Treasurer’s salary $2,200 was j^aid out of the county fund, 
but there was added $1,500 in delinquent tax fees, out of which re¬ 
source he had $2,700 net after paying $1,000 to deputies. These 
















212 


figures do not include attendance on Board of Eeview and perquisites 
of office. 

JACKSON COUNTY. 

There was paid to the officers in this county^ in the aggregate each 
year, an average of $1^943 in excess of the salary list, the percentage of 
payment out of the treasury being 47.3. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary AUou ed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

.. .. $2,401) 

$2,400 

$600 

$3,000 

Sheriff. 

2,300 

2,158 

600 

2,758 

Recorder. 

1,500 

1,500 


500 

Auditor. 

2,500 

100 

2,725 

2,825 

Treasurer. 

2,100 

500 

2,160 

3,660 

Total_ 

$10,800 

$6,658 

$6,085 

$12,743 


The Clerk collected 125 per cent, on a taxation of 144.2 per cent., 
the excess of taxation being $1,060 and collection $602. Paying $750 
to deputies, he had $1,650 yearly from fees. He retained his per diem 
and court allowances, amounting to $600 per year, giving him a total 
average net of $2,250. The Clerk made no collections for his prede¬ 
cessor, but was so successful in his own collections that December 1, 
1899, he had a surplus in his fund of $1,771, or an amount nearly 
equal to three quarters^ salary. 

The Sheriff collected 105.9 per cent., including per diem, or an 
average excess of $158, on a taxation of 141.1 per cent., or an excess 
of $910. The Auditor reported that the Sheriff turned into the fee 
fund 119 per cent, and was paid only 80 per cent, on salary, while the 
State Statistician showed that the receipts of the fees were 136.5 per 
cent. Xotwithstanding the deficit of payment,on salary, there is no 
question but he received it in full out of fees and per diem. After 
paying $900 to deputies he had" $1,400 net, to which can be added $400 
from jail. December 1, 1899, there was a surplus in the Sheriff's fund 
of $1,832.66. It is proper to state in this connection that the Auditor 
says there never has been a deficiency in any of the officers’ salaries in 
this county, and that the Auditor and Becorder, on the date named, 
each had a surplus in his fund, the former amounting to $277.35 and 
the latter to $1,742.29. 

Approximating the total revenues of the Sheriff’s office we have: 


From fees and per diem an average of. $2,500 

From jail.. 400 

From miscellaneous. 300 


Total... $3,200 
















213 


The Recorder collected 116.1 per cent., or an excess of $242, the tax¬ 
ation being 123.8 per cent., or $358 average excess. The Auditor 
reported that the Eecorder turned in fees of 157.7 per cent., or an 
excess of $866, hut according to the same'officer there was $67 deficit 
of salary paid. However, the Eecorder no doubt received his salary 
in full, out of which, after paying $550 to deputies, he had $950 net. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 97.3 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees being less than $100 the year. After paying $900 to 
deputies, he had net $1,600. To this there can be added $400 for 
services as Clerk of County Council and per diem for attending Board 
of Eeview averaging from $60 to $75 the year. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,100 was added an average of $500 
in delinquent tax fees, giving him net of $2,000 after paying $600 to 
deputies. This does not include payment for attendance on Board of 
Eeview or incidental revenue in the course of his business as Treasurer. 

.TASrEK COUNTY. 


There was an average payment in excess of the salary list of $1,294, 
the percentage paid out of the treasury being 38.2 per cent. 

The pa^unents were distributed as follows: 



Salary AUoiced. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk . 

. $1,500 

$1,500 

$110 

$1,610 

Sheriff. 

. 1,400 

1,400 

644 

2,044 

Eecorder. 

. 1.100 

1,100 


1,100 

Auditor. 

. 1,700 

610 

1,135 

1,745 

Treasurer. 

. 1,200 

450 

1,245 

1,695 

Total... 

. $6,900 

$5,060 

$3,134 

$8,194 

The Clerk 

collected 120.5 per 

cent, of his 

salary on a 

taxation 


146 per cent., the excess of collection averaging $350 and taxation 
$650. He paid $150 to deputies, giving him net, out of fees collected, 
$1,350. He retained his per diem of about $110 per year, giving him 
a total average net of $1,460. The Clerk collected nothing for his 
predecessor, who worked under the old fee law, but the resources 
of the office in taxation and collection were sufficient to leave a sur¬ 
plus in the fee fund December 1, 1899, of $1,193, or within $400 of 
being enough to pay a year’s salary. 

The Sheriff collected 59.7 per^cent. on a taxation of 107 per cent. 
Jt is probable the Sheriff gave the Commission only partial returns, as 
he reported no deficiency in salary, and the Auditor showed that he 
collected and turned in 120 per cent, of his salary. The office is, no 
doubt, self-sustaining from fees taxed and collected. The Sheriff 










214 


uaid out only $100 to deputies, leaving $1,300, and in addition re¬ 
tained his per diem of about $200, to which can be added $400 for care 
of prisoners and $200 miscellaneous, giving him, approximately, a 
total revenue of from $2,30040 $2,700, or a total average net of $1,800, 
after paying all expenses. He had a surplus, December 1, 1899, in 
his fee fund, of $920.87. 

The liecorder taxed 202 per cent, and collected 199 per cent, of 
his salary, the excess of taxation being $1,123 and colleetions $1,094 
The State StatisticiaiTs table show the collections to have been 342 
per cent, of the salary. After paying $500 to deputies, he had net 
$G00 from fees collected, and in addition from $25 to $50 for exam¬ 
ining abstraets. December 1, 1899, there was a surplus in his fund of 
$6,455, sufficient to meet six years’ salary. 

To the Auditor’s salary an average of $600 in fees was applied, 
leaving only 64 per cent, to be paid out of the county fund. After pay¬ 
ing $800 to deputies, he had net $900 yearly. 

To the Treasurer’s sala.!^" of $1,200 was applied $450 in fees. After 
paying $780 to deputies he had net only $840. This does not include 
compensation for services on the Board of Beview nor perquisites of 
office. 

JAY COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list was $2,540, the 
payment out of the treasury being about 48 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. dotal. 

Clerk. $2,600 $2,100 $700 $2,800 

Sheriff. 2.400 1,700 1,240 2,940 

Recorder. 1,900 1,900 . 1,900 

Auditor. 2,700 100 2,600 2,700 

Treasurer. 2,300 1,800 2,300 4,100 


Total. $11,900 $7,600 $6,840 $14,440 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 139 per cent, on a taxation 
of 133.4 per cent of his salary, the excess being $1,114 and $3,209, re¬ 
spectively. He retained what he received for making records and 
copies of papers uncertified and also ten cents for printed wrappers for 
the papers in each case. This gave him about $200 extra, in addition 
to his per diem and fees. Paying $700 to deputies he had net $2,100. 
His predecessor worked under the old law, hut the Clerk reporting not 
only collected his own fees, but turned over $3,087 to his predecessor 
and had a surplus, December 1, 1899, of $1,037. 










215 


Ihe Slieriff collected his full salafy, including per diem, the per¬ 
centage of collections being 125 per cent., or $000 excess, on a taxation 
of 156 per cent., or $1,350 excess. With the revenue from hoard of 
prisoners and miscellaneous he had net $2,700. 

Approximating his total returns we have: 


From fees. 

From per diem 

Jail. 

Miscellaneous. 


$3,000 

700 

500 

300 


Total 


$4,500 


The Eecorder taxed and collected 136 per cent, of his salary, or an 
excess of $1,074, and had in his fund, Decemher 1, 1899, $1,163. 
Paying $600 to deputies he had a net return of $1,300 

Xo reports were received from A. C. .^fayner. Auditor, or his suc¬ 
cessor, T. 0. l)oyd, except the latter, who made returns on a second 
series of questions, hut nothing relative to payment of deputies, fees 
of his office, or extra payments. The fees of his office averaged about 
$100 per year, leaving 93.6 per cent, to he paid out of the county fund 
on his salary. He has net from $1,600 to $1,800 yearly. To this net 
compensation can he added $600 as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,300, paid out of the county fund, 
was added an average of $1,300 in delinquent tax fees, leaving $2,700 
net after paying $1,400 to deputies, not including the interest he re¬ 
ceived on deposits or loans. 


JEFFERSON COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list was $1,679, the 
percentage out of the county fund Ijeing 51 per cent, of the whole. 
These payments were distributed as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,400 $2,400 $500 $2,900 

Sheriff. 2,300 1,800 1,500 3,300 

Recorder. 1,500 1,169 150 1,319 

Auditor. , 2,600 300 2,3C0 2,600^ 

Treasurer. ’ 2,100 360 2,100 2,460 


TotA . $10,900 $6,029 $6,550 $12,579 


- The Clerk taxed and collected 112.5 per cent, of liis salary, hut was 
paid out of these collections in addition to his current salary to meet a 
deficit of $225. He did not account to the Auditor for his per diem 
and court allowances, wliich he retained with the understanding that 
he was legally entitled to them, hut he stood ready at any time to ac- 














210 


count for tlieiii when required to do ^^o. dlic.-e allowances adcled 
$500 to his salary, giving his $2,900 the year. Paying $200 to de})U- 
ties, he had net $2,700. He moreover collected, in addition, $1,132 
on account of his predecessor’s business. 

The Sheriff collected and was paid 31.8 per cent, of his salary, or 
$1,107 deficit, the taxation being 59.1 per cent, or $933 deficit. This 
report was for only eighteen months, but the Auditor showed that, on 
the average, during the two years covered by this investigation, the 
Sheriff turned in and was paid 77.2 per cent, of his salary, while the 
State Statistician’s tables exhibited receipts for the Sheriff at 85.5 per 
cent. From these representations it is the opinion of the Commission 
that his average collections were about 80 per cent., leaving him, after 
paying $500 to deputies, a net of $1,300. His per diem and care of 
prisoners gave him $1,500 additional, or a total average net of $2,800. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 77.9 per cent, of his salary, with 
$330 deficit, the average yearly return on salary being $1,160, or a 
net of $819, after paying $350 to deputies. He was paid $600 for extra 
work. 

To the Auditor’s salary $300, on an average in fees, was applied, 
the remainder, 87.7 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury. 
The Auditor received a net salary of $1,550, after paying $1,050 to 
deputies. He also reported $867 in claims for extra work, but did not 
specify the work or by whom the claims were presente4, but he men¬ 
tioned that $610 was allowed to his predecessor, McNutt, for indexing 
records. He did not report the amounts allowed him for services as 
Clerk of the County Council. 

The Treasurer’s salary of $2,100 was paid out of the county fund, 
to which was added delinquent fees averaging $360 the year, giving 
him a net of $1,260, after paying $1,200 to deputies. He made no ac¬ 
counting of perquisites received hy him during his term of office. 

.TENNINGS COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged about $367 
the year, the payment out of the treasury being 42.1 per cent, of the 
whole. 

The j)ayments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fee.'i. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk . 

$1,700 , 

$1,100 

$250 

$1,650 

Sheriff. 

1,700 

1,200 

500 

1,700 

Recorder. 

1,100 

917 


917 

Auditor. 

1,900 

190 

1,710 

1,900 

Treasurer. 

1,500 

600 

1,500 

2,100 

Total.... 

$7,900 

$4,307 

$3,960 

$8,267 











217 


The Clerk collected 79.3 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
94.1 per cent., the deficiency of taxation averaging $100 the year and 
collections $300. In addition he retained $250 per diem and allow¬ 
ances, giving him total net, in the event of his receiving his fnll salary, 
of $1,250, after papng $450 to deputies. As an evidence of the un¬ 
satisfactory condition of taxation of fees in this county in the Clerk’s 
office, we quote from that officer as follows: ‘^Under the head of total 
amount of fees taxed, the figures are not exact. I have taken the two 
fee books in use for the period under consideration, but where cases 
have been continued and estates have run for several years there are 
some fees taxed that I have not looked up.” The Clerk attributed 
his inability to meet his salary from fees collected to the loss in un¬ 
collectible fees. 

The Sheriff collected 70 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 88.1 
per cent., but he turned into the treasury and was paid thereon, for the 
same period, only 57 per cent, lie retained his per diem, and that, 
with the revenue from board of prisoners, about gave him the salary 
allowed by law. He paid only $100 the year to deputies. 

The Recorder collected 83.4 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
90.0 per cent., the average deficit on the latter being from $100 to 
$200 the year. As he had no deputies, his average net salary has been 
$918 the year. 

The Auditor received 90 per cent, of his salary out of the county 
fund, his fees averaging $190 per annum. He paid $600 to deputies, 
and netted about $1,300 out of his office. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,500, paid out of the county fund, 
was added an average of $600 in delinquent fees, which gave him a 
gross yearly return of $2,100, out of which, paying $540 to deputies, 
he had $1,560 net, exclusive of interest on money and other per¬ 
quisites. 


JOHNSON COUNTY. 

There was an average payment of $3,385 over the salary list, the 
payment out of the treasury being 34.2 per cent, of the whole. 

These payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allotced. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

12,200 

$2,200 

$500 

$2,700 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

2,000 

2,284 

4,284 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400' 

Auditor. 

2,300 

75 

2,501 

2,576 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

325 

1,900 

2,225 

Total .... 

$9,800 

$0,000 

$7,185 

$13,325 










218 


The Clerk collected 100 per cent, of bis salax}^ on a taxation of 1G7 
per cent., the taxation being $1,500 in excess of the salary. lie re¬ 
tained his per diem and allowances, which gave him a return of about 
$2,700, or $2,100 net after paying $600 to deputies. While collecting 
his own salary under liis own taxation the Clerk received $1,126.23 
on account of his predecessor’s business, but with this healthy condi¬ 
tion of collection there was no surplus in the Clerk's fund on Decem¬ 
ber 1, 1899. 

The Sheriff gave very little data satisfactory to the Commission, on 
account of his being in office only a few months previous to being 
asked for information. He reported that lie had no records of his 
predecessor from which to ascertain the fees taxed and collected for' 
the two years covered by this investigation. He was of the opinion 
that he would not realize more than $1,200 out of his salary of $2,000, 
but the Auditor showed that the Sheriff’s eollections, turned into the 
treasury for the two years considered, amounted to only 40 per cent, 
of the salary. On the other hand, the State Statistician’s tables gave 
receipts of 95.1 per cent. It is the opinion of the Commission notwith¬ 
standing the wide variation in these reports, that the office is self- 
sustaining, but, as in all other instances of the kind, the Sheriff is 
either negligent or has considerable difficulty in collecting his fees. 
On the figures at hand it is assumed that the officer, out of fees col¬ 
lected, after paying $600 to deputies, has a net return of from $1,200 
to $1,400 yearly. Yet, while the Sheriff labored under these con¬ 
ditions he was paid liberally out of the county fund for care of prison¬ 
ers and other work. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office we have as follows, 
granting that the Sheriff in time collects his full salary from fees: 


From fees. $2,000 

Per diem. 250 

Jail and criminal allowances. 1,870 

Miscellaneous. 250 


Total. $8,870 


For the two years under consideration, relative to the Sheriff’s of¬ 
fice, the Auditor reported to the Commission a total payment out of 
the treasury of $5,560, or an average yearly of $2,785. This was so 
large and seemingly out of proportion to the business of the Sheriff’s 
office in that county that the Secretary of the Commission wrote for 
further information, particularly regarding the $2,828.98, which was 
termed “other fees” in distinction from $2,740.21 charged “criminal 
account.” It was especially asked if the ordinary fees collec’ted by the 









Sherifl; were included in the $*^,828.1)8. The Auditor re23lied: 'T do 
not know that I can give a satisfactory answer to the question, because 
I do not know what the Sheriff turned into the treasury as fees. He 
has had his own construction of what are fees and what are not. I 
think, however, only a very small amount of the $2,828.98 is other 
than money paid to the Sheriff out of the county fund for per diem 
and bailiff^s fees.'’^ If this is correct, there would be a further average 
yearly of $1,414 to add to the above approximation of revenues, giv¬ 
ing him a total of $5,284. These revenues added to collection of fees, 
even at a small rate per cent, on his salary, would give him net from 
$3,300 to $3,600 the year. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 108 per cent, of his salary. Pay¬ 
ing $320 to deputies he had net $1,080 out of his salary of $1,400. 

Of the Auditors salary 96.1 per cent, was paid from the county 
treasury, the fees being about $75 the year. Ilis net compensation out 
of his salary, after paying $1,200 to deputies, was $1,100. He had 
further $3 per day for attending Board of Review. 

To the Treasurers salary of $1,900, paid out of the county fund, 
was added an average of $325 in delinquent fees. Paying $870 to 
deputies, he had net $1,355. This does not include his per diem for 
attendance on the Board of Review or returns from use of money. 


KNOX COUNTY. 

There was an average yearly excess of payment over the salary list 
of $2,360, the payment out of the treasury being 52 per cent, of the 
whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Al'owed. 

Fe^s. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$^2,700 

$2,200 

$5f0 

$2,700 

Sheriff. 

2,500 

1,900 

1,900 

3,800 

Recorder. 

1,600 

1,600 


1,600 

Auditor. 

2,900 

400 

2,560 

2,960 

Treasurer. 

2,500 

1,000 

2,500 

3,500 

Total ... 

$12,200 

$7,100 

$7,460 

$14,560 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 124.3 per cent, of his sal¬ 
ary on a taxation of 207.4 per cent., the excess of taxation being $2,- 
900 and collections $557. He paid $330 to deputies, giving him $1,- 
450 net. The resources of this office also permitted a collection of 
$2,500 for the Clerk's predecessor, but notwithstanding this, no sur¬ 
plus was reported to this Commission. 









V 


220 

The Sheriff collected 100 per cent., including per diem, on a taxa¬ 
tion of 211 per cent., or $3,589 excees. The Auditor showed that the 
fSheritf had turned in fees to the treasury of 106 per cent. After pay¬ 
ing $1,000 to de]7uties he had $1,500 out of fees and per diem col¬ 
lected, with about $800 more for care of prisoners, giving .him a total 
net of from $2,200 to $2,400. 

Approximating the total revenues of this office we have: 


From fees. $1,900 

Per diem. 600 

Jail. 1,300 

Miscellaneous. 2o0 


Total. $4,050 


The Ilecorder collected 140 per cent, on a taxation of 145.4 per 
cent., tlie average yearly excess being $727 on taxation and $637 on 
collection. The Auditor showed a collection by the Recorder of 136 
pfer cent., or $590 excess. After paying $480 to deputies the Recorder 
had net $1,120. 

Of the Auditors salary about $400 was covered by fees, 85 per cent, 
being paid out of the county treasury. After paying $1,520 to depu¬ 
ties, he had $1,380 net and $60 from the Board of Review, with a 
further allowance for services as Clerk of the County Council, the 
amount not given. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,200 was added $1,000 in delinquent 
fees, which about covered his deputy hire, leaving him net $2,200, not 
including compensation for attendance upon Board of Review or 
personal revenue from the use of county funds. 

KOSCIUSKO COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list was $1,425, the 
payment out of the county fund being 47.1 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as fo’llows: 

Salary Allowed Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,700 $2,230 $450 $2,680 

Sheriff. 2,500 2,000 1,000 3,000 

Recorder. 1,600 1,600 100 1,700 

Auditor. 2,900 500 2,485 2,985 

Treasurer. 2,200 700 2,260 2,960 

Total. $11,900 $7,030 $6,295 $13,325 


The Clerk reported a taxation and collection for his full term of 
four years, from Xovember 1, 1895, to November 1, 1899. His 
average taxation was 120 per cent, of his salary, and the collections 















221 


about 10 per cent., including per diem, but for the two years covered 
by the report of the Commission, the Auditor showed that the Clerk 
turned in 115 per cent, of his salary and was paid about 111 per cent. 
It is evident that without the per diem the Clerk has not made his 
salary, and he ?ays vdth respect to his deficit that for the first two years 
of his term he did not quite make his salary, the amount allowed him 
by law, but did in the end. He had about $1,550 net after paying 
$1,150 to deputies. The Clerk collected $2,600 for his predecessor, 
and on December 1, 1899, a month after he had retired from office and 
had settled in full, there was a surplus in his fund of $2,201.80, a 
little more than three quarters^ salary. The only extra work for 
which he was paid, amounting to $25, was for making a new vowel 
index covering a period of eight years. 

The Sheriff collected 95.1 per cent, of his salary, including per diem, 
on a taxation of 107 per cent., the deficit in collection being very 
small and the excess of taxation about $200. He realized his full 
salary, no doubt, and paying $1,080 to deputies had net $420 out of 
fees collected. 

Approximating the total revenues from his office we have: 


From fees. 82,000 

Per diem. 500 

Boarding prisoners... 300 

Miscellaneous. 300 


Total. 83,300 


This allows him to make net out of the office from $2,000 to $2,500 
the year. 

The Kecorder collected 193.7 per cent, of his salary, the excess be¬ 
ing $1,500 for the year, but the Auditor showed that he turned in fees 
of 136.4 per cent., or $580 in excess per year. After paying $600 to 
deputies the Eecorder had net about $1,000 out of his office. He was 
allowed $200 for extra work. 

Of the Auditor's salary 83.4 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees amounting to about $500 the year. Paying $1,500 to 
deputies, he had $1,400 net. He was allowed $25 the year for making 
exhibits for County Commissioners, and to his net return from salary 
can be added $300 for services as Clerk of the County Council, and his 
per diem for attending Board of Eeview. 

To the Treasurers salary of $2,200 was-added $700 in delinquent 
fees, giving him net $1,655, after paying $1,245 to deputies. Further¬ 
more, he had per diem for attending Board of Eeview and perquisites 
arising from the course of public business. 










LAG KANG E C'OU XT Y. 


There \vas ])aid 

an average exce 

ss of $259 over the 

salary list, the 

payment out of the treasury being 

aljout 50 

per cent, of the whole. 

These payments 

were distributed 

. as follow 

s \ 


Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. Total. 

Clerk. 

$1,800 

$1,700 

$200 

$1,900 

Sheriff. 

1,700 

900 

700 

1,600 

Recorder. 

1,100 

1,100 


1,100 

Auditor. 

1,900 

200 

1,700 

1,900 

Treasurer. 

1,500 

250 

1,500 

1,750 

Total. 

$8,000 

$4,150 

$4,100 

$8,250 


Tlie Clerk reported no taxation because would be a week’s work 
to ascertain it.” This is one of several illustrations of the inability to 
ascertain accurately the amount of fees taxed for any given period. 
He collected 93.3 ])er cent, of his salary, while the Auditor showed that 
the collection and ])ayment of salary to the Clerk was 97.2 per cent.; 
the Clerk's average return, out of the amount allowed him by law, 
$1,800, was from $1,()00 to $l,i00. Paying $400 to deputies gave him 
net from $1,200 to $1,300. With his per diem and allowances of $200 
more he received an average net of $1,500. While collecting fees un¬ 
der his own taxatio]! he received $(>92 on account of his ])redecessor's 
business. The deficiency in his salary he attributed to slow collec¬ 
tions. Among tlie jmyments not eiuimerated in the ('lerk's re]>ort was 
that of $150 to him for examining old change of venue costs “in order 
to facilitate their collections." 

The Sheritf collected only 31.G ])er cent, of his salary on a taxation 
of 3() ])er cent., the deficiency of taxation being $050 and collections 
$820. He received from $800 to $900 out of a salary of $1,700, his net 
return after jiaying $250 to dei)uties being from $000 to $700, but in 
addition he had the use of $700 the year made up of ])er diem and 
turnkeys' tees and care of ])risoners. His total average net was about 
$1,000, but the State Statistician’s tables reveal that the receipts of the 
office have been 80 per cent, of the salary, or about $1,300 out of fees 
collected. This would give the Sheriff $1,100 net, and with incidentals 
$400 more than the salary allowed him by law. The Sheriff wrote the 
Commission: “Just what money a Sheriff of Indiana receives and 
how much is to be ap})lied on salaiw I have been unable to find out; 
therefore, with the assistance of the county attorney and Circuit Judge 
1 have arrived at the within report, which shows 1 have made out of 
my office from IMarch 1. 1897. to IMarch 1. 1899. from all sources: 









In and out of jail and percentage made on board. $-129 43 

Attending Commissioners’ Court. 140 00 

Attending Circuit Court. 287 00 

Fees collected within my own county. 1,756 59 

Foreign fees collected. 71 10 


Total. $2,684 12 

Total less deputy hire.. 2,184 12 


The Recorder collected and taxed 11G.3 per cent., or as reported to 
the state Statistician, 124 per cent., the excess in the two methods of 
calculation being from $269 to $279 the 3 ^ 0 ar. The Recorder had no 
deputy and realized his full salary of $1,100 out of fees collected. 

The Auditor’s salary was covered by payment of 90.7 per cent, out 
of the county fund and $300 from fees. After paying $312 to deputies 
he had a net return of $1,385, not including attendance on Board of 
Review and compensation for services as Clerk of Gonnty Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,500, paid out of the county fund, an 
average of $250 from delinquent fees was added. This about paid his 
deputies, and he had net the salary allowed him by law, $1,500, to 
which can be added per diem for attending Board of Review and inter¬ 
est on deposits. 


LAKE COUNTY. 


There was in this county an average payment over the salary list of 
$7,183, the payment out of the county fund being about 43.2 per cent, 
of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: * 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $:3,600 $3,600 $1,043 $4,643 

Sheriff. 3,600 3,600 3,789 7,389 

Kecorder. 2,100 2,400 335 2,735 

Auditor. 3,200 2,200 1,680 3,680 

Treasurer. 2,700 1,174 2,862 4,036 


Total. $15,500 $12,974 $9,709 $22,683 

The Clerk had his salary of $3,000 under the law of 1895 increased 
to $3,600 on account of the creation of the Superior Court. From the 
two courts he showed a taxation of 113.4 per cent, of his salary, or an 
excess of about $485 yearly. He collected 88.1 per cent., or a deficit 
of $426 yearly. These returns were received from H. H. Wheeler, who 
went into the office November 1, 1899, his predecessor. Cl. "SI. Edar, 
having failed to report to the Commission. Sir. Edar retained his 


















224 


per diem of $500 per year, and also fees from insanity and coroners’ 
inquests and expenses for election services and certain incidental fees 
■ allowed by court, for coinmitment of prisoners, appointment of judges, 
and other fees paid out of the county fund. In addition, Mr. Edar 
received $180 for indexing judgments; in all, these perquisites 
amounted to from $1,000 to $1,500. The exact amount can not 
he stated, as it was not reported to the Commission. Assuming that 
Mr. Edar received his full salar}q in the course of collection, his net 
yearly compensation with extras was from $2,800 to $3,400, after 
paying $1,800 to deputies. 

To the Sheriff the same rule of increase in salary was applied. He 
received his full salary, as he collected 102 per cent, on a taxation of 
129.8 per cent., the excess of collection heing nearly $100 and 
taxation $1,074. Out of his collection he netted $1,260, after paying 
$2,340 to deputies. In addition he had from per diem and care of 
prisoners an average of $3,789, giving him a total net of from $3,500 
to $3,800. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 124 per cent, of his salary and 
retained the fees for acknowledgments, copying of deeds and morE 
gages. He paid $1,100 to deputies and had $1,300 net. In addition 
he received $670 extra for indexing and copying. 

The Auditor collected an average of $2,100, the remainder of his 
salary, 34.1 per cent., heing paid out of the county fund; in addition 
he received $960 for extra work, and paying $2,500 to deputies, he 
had net between $800 and $900. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,700, paid out of the county fund, 
was added $1,174 ii> delinquent fees, and out of the two sources of 
income he paid $1,200 to deputies, giving him a net salary of $2,600. 
Since his report to the Commission he reported verbally that his 
delinquent fees had materially increased and that he made about 
$3,500 net per year, and in addition was paid $200 for extra work. 

To the Auditor’s income, as well as the Treasurer’s, can he added 
per diem for attending Board of Review. 

Relative to the fees and salaries and extra compensation of the 
officers of this county, the Auditor, iMichael Grimmer, wrote: ^^The 
Clerk of this county receives a salary of $3,600, which is fully made 
by fees collected in that office. Aside from this he received, during 
the two years specified, $2,086, including per diem for superior and 
circuit court, insane and coroners’ inquests, indexing sureties and 
judgments, election expenses and expenses of committing and dis¬ 
charging insane. 



225 


"‘The Auditor receives a salary of $3,200, part of which, $1,852.78, 
is ])aid out of the county iuud, tlie balance being the amount of 
fees collected and paid from that fund; in addition to this the Auditor 
received $000 for making assessors^ books, attendance on Board of 
heview, ])reparing transcripts and bonds for gravel roads, posting 
notices, making records of subdivisions and coj)ying records. 

“Jhe Kecoi-der recauves a salary of $2,400, which is fully met by 
fees collected, leaving a briknce of $2,228.32 in that fund at last set¬ 
tlement. lie received iji addition $010 for copying deeds, records 
and ])lat books and pre])aring records. 

“Ibe Treasurer receives a salary of $2,700, which is paid out of 
the county treasury, and in addition he has received $324.75 for 
attendance on Board of Heview and expense of sales of gravel road 
bonds and other expenses. 

“The Sberitt receives a salaiw of $3,000. which is fully met by the 
fees collected in bis otiice, and in addition to this be received $7,579.01 
for the two years specitied, as charges for the following items: 

“■Attendance on on (4)inmissioners’, Circuit and Superior courts. 

‘^‘Arrest^, commitmeuts and return of })risoners and insane. 

“Serving road review. 

“Serving jurors. 

“Dieting prisoners. 

‘^AVashing for prisoners. 

“December 1, 1899, there was no surplus in any of the funds except 
that of the Recorder, the amount being $2,228.’’ 


T.A1‘()UTE COUNTY. 

In this county there was an average excess of payment over the sal¬ 
ary list of $445, the ])ayment out of the treasury being 4(1.7 per cent, 
of the whole. 


The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk.. 

...... 13,800 

$3,400 

$600 

$4,000 

Sheriff.. 

. 3,800 

2,200 

1,000 

3,200 

Recorder. 

. 2,000 

1,875 


1,875 

Auditor. 

. 3,700 

600 

3,310 

3,910 

Treasurer. 

. 2,900 

700 

2,960 

3,660 

Total... 

. $16,200 

$8,775 

$7,870 

$16,645 


The salary alloAved the Clerk of this county under the law of 1895 
was increased on the creation of the Superior Court. He reported 
that he had collected and was paid thereon, during the two 3 Tars 
covered by this investigation, G8.3 per cent, on the average, but the 

15—F. AND S. Com. 











226 


Auditor reported collections and payments on salary to the Clerk 
amounting to 103.9 per cent,, or $200 more than the salary due him 
for two years. By his accounting his deficit has been $100 the year, 
but by the Auditor's figures it is learned that his excess of collection 
has been $100 the year. Pie evidently received his full salary, out of 
which he paid $2,000 to deputies, giving him net $1,500. However, 
there is a difference of three months in the two reports, and it appears 
with the Auditor’s figures is included $2,423, turned in by the Clerk’s 
predecessor. Tlie increase covering services for the Superior Court 
was $300, making the full salary $3,800 the year, which reduces the 
percentage of collection to 63 per cent., according to the Clerk’s fig¬ 
ures, and the Auditor’s to 94.8 per cent. lie paid his per diem into 
the treasury, but the amount allowed him for extra work will give 
him net from $2,000 to $2,200 per year. The Clerk told the Com¬ 
mission that he did not figure the amount of his taxation, as it would 
be a long and tedious task. ^Tn taxing the probate fees,” he said, 
^Sve tax them at the time of making reports and not each term. I am 
paid $1.60 to $3.00 for recording each coroner’s inquest. The law 
requires the filing of papers, but does not allow them being recorded, 
which I do as a safeguard. In collecting my general fees I find the 
issuing of fee bills useless, and that persuasion and easy measures 
will secure the money where fee bills will not.” 

The Sheriff, whose salary has been increased like that of the Clerk, 
collected of it about 44 per cent, on a taxation of 48.6 per cent., but the 
Auditor showed that the Sheriff had collected and was paid 68.3 per 
cent., his deficit being from $1,200 to $1,500 the year. Paying $1,000 
to deputies, he had a net revenue amounting to about $1,200 the year 
from fees. While the Clerk paid his per diem into the treasury, the 
Sheriff did not, this amounting to $600 the year and $800 more from 
jail and care of prisoners gave him a total revenue, less deputy hire and 
including expense of prisoners, of about $3,000. The Sheriff wrote: 
^^]\Iy deficiency is due to the fact that I am unable to earn my full 
salar}^ as many of the fees are uncollectible; besides, there are a good 
many cases where attorneys and their clients serve subpoenas them¬ 
selves, and these are cases as a rule that count up in mileage and 
service very fast.” 

Approximating the total revenues from this office we have: 


From fees. $2,200 

Per diem. 600 

Jail. 800 

Miscellaneous. 300 

Total. $3,900 









227 


The Recorder taxed and collected and was paid 95.7 per cent, of 
his salary, or a deficit of $125; paying $260 to deputies, he had net 
$1,615 the year. 

To the Auditor’s salary about $600 in fees was applied, the re¬ 
mainder, 84 per cent., being paid out of the county fund; paying 
$1,200 to deputies, he had $2,500 net. In addition he received, on an 
average, $150 the year for indexing old records, or $307 for the two 
years and per diem for Board of Be view, to which can be added, here¬ 
after, $400 for services as Clerk of the County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,900 was added an average of $700 
in delinquent fees, leaving him net $2,800 after paying $800 to 
deputies; to this can he added per diem for attending Board of Eeview 
and perquisites of office. 

LAWRENCE COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,647, the 
payment out of the treasury being 43.6 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

12,200 

$2,000 

$325 

$2,325 

Sheriff. 

2,100 

1,222 

1,000 

2,022 

Recorder. 

.... 1,500 

1,500 


1,500 

Auditor. 

2,300 

400 

2,040 

2,440 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

1,200 

1,960 

3,160 

Total ,... 

$10,000 

$6,322 

$5,325 

$11,647 


The Clerk collected 113 per cent., including per diem, on a taxation 
of 143.5 per cent.; the excess of taxation being $958 and collection 
$267. He retained his per diem of $250 for three terms of court, and 
the court has allowed him $125 the year for ^^giving the condition of 
causes of which the pleadings had been continued for five terms.” 
His average compensation was $2,325, or $125 more than the salary 
allowed him by law; paying $800 to deputies he had net return of 
$1,525, or at one time when he retained his per diem, of $1,725. In 
his report to the Auditor he turned in fees amounting to 123.3 per 
cent, of his salary. During the collections under his own taxation he 
collected $1,345.17 for his predecessor and had a surplus in his fund, 
December 1, 1899, of $1,071.69. 

The Sheriff collected only 58.2 per cent, of his salary on taxation a 
little lower. The deficit of taxation being $950 and collection $880. 
His yearly compensation averaged $1,223 from fees, out of which he 












228 


paid $350 to- deputies, leaving him net $870. He retained his per 
diem of about $330, and further liad $650 for care of i>risoners, leaving 
him a net return from $1,600 to $1,850. 

The Recorder, December 1, 1899, had a surplus in Ins fund of 
$277.80, and had collected on an average during the two years cov¬ 
ered by this report, 100 per cent, on a taj^ation of like amount; but 
the Auditor shoAved that the collections turned into the treasury 
amounted to only 83 per cent, of the salary, a deficit of $241, Avhile 
from the State Statisticians tables it is ascertained that the collec¬ 
tions were 90.8 per cent. After paying $600 to deputies he had, in 
the event he received his full salary, a net of $900. 

Of the Auditors salary 82 per cent. Avas paid out of the county 
fund, the balance being met by an average of $400 in fees, to AAdiich 
can be added $600 for services as Clerk of the County Council and 
per diem for attending Board of RevieAv. 

The Treasurer Avas paid $1,900 out of the county fund, an amount 
that Avas increased to $3,100 by $1,200 from delinquent fees. After 
paying $650 to deputies, he had a net compensation of $2,450 the 
year, not including compensation for attendance on Board of Review 
and perquisites of office. 


MADISON COUNTY. 


The average payment over the salary list AA^as $5,235, the per¬ 
centage of payment out of the treasury being 40 per cent, of the 
AAdiole. 

The payments Avere distributed as folloAvs: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. 14,800 $3,826 $1,100 $4,926 

Sheriff. 4,600 4,600 3,323 7,923 

Recorder. 3,800 3,800 . 3,800 

Auditor. 4,800 1,800 3,643 5,443 

Treasurer. 3,800 1,100 3,843 4,943 


Total. $21,800 $15,126 $11,909 $27,035 


The Clerk collected 175 per cent, of his salary, including per diem,, 
on a taxation of 230 per cent., the excess being $3,610 in collection 
and $6,200 in taxation; but the Auditor shoAved the collections to 
have been nearly 200 per cent., an excess of $4,739. After paying 
$2,692 to deputies, the Clerk had net $2,234 out of fees. In addition 
he collected $1,762 for his predecessor and had, December 1, 1899, a 
surplus in his fund of $14,500, enough to pay three years’ salary; not 
included in the above table to the Clerk’s immediate predecessor there 
AA^as a payment of $600 for indexing. 












229 


The Sheriff collected about 100 per cent, on a taxation of 146.7 
per cent., the excess of the latter over salary being $2,150 the year.* He 
was allowed no per diem, and paying $2,640 to deputies, he had $1,960, 
to which can he added $3,323 for care of prisoners and from $800 to 
$1,000 for other incidentals, giving him a total revenue, exclusive of 
deputy hire, of $8,923. 

Approximating the total revenues from this office we have: 


From fees. $4,600 

Jury work. 500 

Jail. 3,323 

Miscellaneous. 500 


Total. $8,923 


December 1, 1899, the Sheriff had a surplus in his fund of 
$4,674.31. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 167 per cent, of his salary, or 
$2,540 excess for the year. The Auditor showed that he turned in fees 
amounting to 147.5 per cent., or an average excess of 1,805. Paying 
$2,000 to deputies, he had net $1,800. The Recorder had a surplus 
in his fund December 1, 1899, amounting to $9,378. 

To the Auditor’s salary $1,800 in fees was applied on the average 
yearly, leaving 64 per cent, to be paid out of the treasury. Paying 
$3,300. to deputies he had $1,500 net, to which he added per diem 
for attending Board of Review and other allowances amounting to 
$623 per year, giving him a total net of $2,193. He reported no 
allowance for services as Clerk of the County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary $3,843, paid out of the county treasury, 
there was added $1,100 in delinquent fees, giving him net $2,443, 
after paying $2,500 to deputies. This does not include his revenue 
on the use of county money. 

Among the above payments out of the county treasury the Auditor 
reported the following claims of county officers filed during the two 
years from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899: 


County Clerk for deputy in Superior Court. $626 50 

Auditor making annual report of County Commissioners 200 00 

Total. $826 50 


These sums were allowed by the County Commissioners, together 
with the following amounts: 


Clerk indexing judgment. $1,575 

Auditor making assessors and plat book. 700 

Auditor making transfer books. 400 

Total. $2,675 














230 


MARION COUNTY. 


There was in the county an average excess of payment of $19,421 
over the salary list, the payment out of the county fund being 42.6 per 
cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Alloived. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$19,500 

$16,500 

$4,544 , 

$19,500 

Sheriff. 

13,000 

13,000 

11,377 

24,377 

Recorder. 

12,500 

12,500 


12,500 

Auditor. 

. 17,500 

4,800 

12,700 

17,500 

Treasurer. 

11,000 

6,500 

11,000 

17,500 

Total.... 

$73,500 

$53,300 

$39,621 

$92,921 


The Clerk collected 138.9 per cent., including his per diem, on a 
taxation of 185 per cent., the excess of collection being $7,100 and 
taxation $16,500. It is valuable in this connection to note the com¬ 
parison with the taxation and collection of fees in other large counties. 

In Allen the taxation was 22 per cent, and collections 27.6 per 
cent, of that of Marion. 

In Madison the taxation was 30 per cent, and collection 31 per 
cent, of that of Marion. 

In Vigo the taxation was 34 per cent, and collection 29 per cent, of 
that of Marion. 

The collections of per diem and court allowances which were paid 
into the treasury of Marion County and drawn back on salary by the 
Clerk, averaged about $3,000 the year. He, therefore, received only 
the salary of $19,500 allowed by law, out of which he had $6,500, after 
paying $13,000 to deputies. But while he reported his collections to 
the Commission at 138.9 per cent., the Auditor showed that he turned 
in fees amounting to 145 per cent. An important item in the work of 
the Clerk’s office in this county is the collection of fees under the pre¬ 
decessor’s taxation. For the former Clerk, Wilson, who worked under 
the old law, a large amount has been received and paid him. Fesler, his 
immediate successor, having collected for him $15,534.09 in his four 
years’ term. Elliott, who succeeded Fesler, collected for him, in a few 
months, $9,612. Fesler did also considerable extra work under con¬ 
tract with the County Commissioners, as did the Auditor and Re¬ 
corder, but the amounts therefor were not returned to the Commis¬ 
sion. The extra work in the Auditor’s office was paid for at the rate 














231 


of from $3 per day for copying and $5 per day for comparing records. 
The Clerk had a surplus of fees in his fund, December 1, 1899, of 
$21,329.46. 

The Sheriff collected 86.4 per cent, on an average, on a taxation of 
132.6 per cent., the deficit being $750 in collection, and the excess of 
taxation, $4,246, but during the same period the Auditor reported that 
the Sheriff turned into the treasury 108,3 per cent, of his collections, 
receiving a like amount on salary. His salary is paid in full, the ex¬ 
cess of jaayments thereon being, no doubt,'due to past deficiencies. 
Paying $5,880 to deputies, the Sheriff had a net salar^^ under these 
conditions of $7,120 out of fees. In addition he had $625 for attend¬ 
ance on Criminal Court, with an average net of $5,029 from the 
county jail, $1,410 from other allowances, and $1,000 from foreign 
fees, giving him a total net of $15,185. 

As the report from this Sheriff's office is typical of conditions that 
exist in greater or less degree throughout the State concerning that 
office, we quote as follows from a letter of Sheriff Clark to the Com¬ 
mission relative to the fees of predecessors: ^‘Sheriff Emmett’s salary 
from 1892 to 1894 has not been paid up; his deficit, June 1, 1899, 
amounted to $1,533.82. Sheriff Womack from 1894 to 1896, and 
Sheriff Shufelton, from 1896 to 1898, salary paid up. My salary for 
the quarter ending December 1, 1899, will in all probability be paid 
in full. The deficit for the first three months of my term was $3,361, 
on account of the falling off of profitable business, such as fore¬ 
closures, in which the costs are good, and the large increase of divorce 
and damage suits in which the costs are very uncertain. I have col¬ 
lected for my predecessors as follows: 


Emmett. $1,213 01 

Womack. 2,424 84 

Shufelton. 1,116 48 


Total. $4,754 33 

Approximating the yearly revenues from this office we have: 

From fees. $13,000 

Per diem Criminal Court. 625 

Jail. 9,342 

Other allowances. 1,410 

Foreign fees. 1,000 


Total., $25,377 














232 


As to his taxation of fees the Sheriff wrote that it could he divided 
as follows: 


Superior Court, three rooms. $11,183 75 

Circuit Court. 2,055 00 

Probate and miscellaneous, including serving of all jurors 
Road Reviewers, and allowances for work for which 

county pays. 2,528 24 

Criminal Court. 4,583 00 

Court costs for charged for collection as well as making 
deeds, and in and out of jail fees. 14,143 80 


Total. $34,493 79 


desire/^ Sheriff Clark further wrote, ‘ffo call attention to the 
large amount of fees taxed in the Criminal Court, for which service 
the Sheriff receives very little compensation. The fees taxed were 
$4,383, of which amount only $375 was collected. I also desire to 
call attention to the accrued costs, to wit: The sum of $14,143.80, a 
large part of which are fees from sales of real estate. It is easy to see 
how the Sheriff’s salary could suffer from the falling off of that 
amount of fees, while his expenses would not decrease in the least.” 
The Sheriff had a surplus of fees, December 1, 1899, of $997.79. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 124 per cent, of his salary, the 
excess being $3,000. The Auditor showed he turned in 126 per cent., 
or an excess of $3,307. Raying $9,310 to deputies he had net $3,182. 
The Recorder had a surplus of fees, December 1, 1899, of $6,332. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 72 per cent, was paid out of the co-unty 
fund, the fees amounting to about $4,300. In addition he was allowed 
by the Conimissioners from $3 to $5 per day for making plat books. 
After paying $1,400 to deputies he had $3,500 net, or with extra wmrk 
from $4,000 to $5,000. He was allowed $600 for services as Clerk of 
County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $11,000 an average of $6,500 in delin¬ 
quent fees was added, giving him a total of $17,500. After paying 
$17,000 to deputies he apparently had net only $500, but he states that 
his net salary out of fees and treasury was $4,913. In addition he 
received $8,000 as city treasurer, the work thereof being done by the 
same deputies employed for county services; and further, he had 
interest on the use of moneys, the revenues therefrom not being 
stated to this Commission. 









233 


MARSHALL COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $2,713, the 
payment out of the treasury being 41.7 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk . 

$2,400 

$2,100 

$300 

$2,400 

Sheriff. 

2,200 

1,750 

1,000 

2,750 

Recorder. 


1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

. 2,500 

900 

2,163 

3,063 

Treasurer. 

2,100 

1,600 

2,100 

3,700 

Total.... 

$10,600 

$7,750 

$5,563 

$13,^13 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 115.4 per cent., while the 
Auditor showed that he turned into the treasury 132.9 per cent, and 
was paid 116 per cent., flie taxation being 73.1 per cent, for the two 
years covered by this investigation. The excess of collections can, no 
doubt, be explained by the fact that they were made under taxation 
preceding the date, March 1, 1897, when the investigation of this Com¬ 
mission began. In' these figures the deficit of taxation for the two 
years concerned, average $672 and excess of collection $367, with an 
excess of payment on salary of $300. Paying $600 to deputies the 
Clerk had $1,800 net. 

A reference by Clerk Brooke in his letter to the Commission, being 
equally applicable to all other Clerks in the State, we quote: ‘‘1 do 
not pretend to say that the amount of taxation is absolutely correct, 
but it is approximately so. To get the exact figures would be an end¬ 
less task. The amoui:it of fees collected were taken from the reports 
• of my predecessor and the County Auditor. It was not until Mar. 1, 
1897, that the office began to be self-sustaining, and during the two 
years following that my predecessor collected and turned into the 
Treasury over $700 in excess of his salary, but for the preceding six¬ 
teen months he had not collected fees enough to pay his sala.ry by 
$636. The fees of the officer for the first year come very slow, not 
because the fees are not good, although there are many that are not 
collectible, but in the natural course of cases there is delay before the 
costs are finally detennined. Again, in all criminal cases where there 
is no conviction no fees are taxed, and therefore a great deal of service 
is done in that way for which there is nothing to show. The total col¬ 
lections I report to you are not only fees taxed on the fee books, but 
from marriage licenses, insanity cases, court allowances, and all miscel¬ 
laneous work. My predecessor had his entire salary and all fees col- 













234 


lected by me, taxed by him, I pay into the county treasury as taxed in 
his favor, and in addition I make a report for myself and pay in my 
own fees. As for the latter, I am not collecting enough at present to- 
pay the expenses of the office, the receipts, for the first half of Decem¬ 
ber being less than $30, and I expect there will be a deficiency of nO' 
small proportion the first year/^ 

Joseph E. Marshall, Sheriff, failed to report, but the Auditor 
showed that his collections were 128.5 per cent, of his salary, including^ 
per diem, or $626 excess. The Sheriff was paid 103.1 per cent., or 
$136 excess, netting, therefore, after pa 3 dng $500 to deputies, $1,700. 
His incidentals will amount to $1,000 or more, giving him a total net 
compensation of $2,700. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 158.6 per cent., but the Auditor 
showed that only 110 per cent, was turned into the treasury, or $820 
excess, in one instance, and $277 in the other. Paying $650 to depu¬ 
ties, he had a net return of $750 per year. 

To the Auditor’s salary an average of $900 in fees was applied, the' 
remainder, 63.1 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury. 
After paying $1,200 to deputies he had net $1,300. The Auditor, as 
well as the other officers, claimed their fees and paid them into the 
treasury under protest. This does not include $76 per diem for 
attendance on Board of Review and $400 hereafter for County Council 
service. 

To the $2,100 of the Treasurer’s salary, paid out of the county 
fund, $1,600 on an average was added in delinquent tax fees. After- 
paying $1,100 to deputies he had net $2,600, and aside from this, 
compensation for attending Board of Review and perquisites of office.. 


MARTIN COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,443-' 
the year, the payment out of the treasury being 40 per cent, of the- 
whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 


Salary Allowed. 


Clerk. $1,600 

Sheriff. 1,600 

Recorder. 1,100 

Auditor. 1,700 

Treasurer. 1,400 


Total. $7,400 


Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

$1,500 

$175 

$1,675 

1,600 

600 

2,200 

966 


966 

270 

1,490 

1,760 

842 

1,400 

2,242 

$5,178 

$3,665 

$8,843. 














235 


The Clerk collected 94.3 per cent, of his salar}^ on a taxation of 
abont 100 per cent., but according to the Auditor he was paid thereon 
only 83 per cent., while the Clerk reports he was paid 94 per cent. 
The difference, averaging $176 per year, is, no doubt, what he received 
from per diem, as he retained that and other allowances and yet the 
deficiency in salary averages $100 the year. He paid to deputies a 
small amount, little more than $100, so the Clerk’s net return from the 
office has been about $1,400 the year. He, in addition to collecting 
under his own taxation, collected $586 for his predecessor. He said 
that all fees taxed and collected, as well as per diem, were taxed on 
cash book and credited to salary, and that he was alloAved in addi¬ 
tion $50 the year ^Tor moving records from the Eecorder’s office 
to the court room and back to the Clerk’s office and making bar 
dockets.” He complained that the deficiency in his office was due to 
lack of litigation and the insolvency of defendants in misdemeanor 
cases and sometimes in civil cases. 

The Sheriff reported no taxation and collection, but stated that 
his deficiency in salary was about $500 the year, which gave him 
$1,100 out of fees, but according to the reports he made to the Auditor 
his collections were 86 per cent, of his salary, or $1,400 the year. 
On the other hand, he says he was paid 79.3 per cent., or at the rate 
of $1,250 the year. Notwithstanding this confusion of statements the 
Commission is of the opinion that the salary is paid in full, or if not, 
with only a small deficiency. After paying $600 to deputies he 
averages net, from fees collected, from $800 to $1,000 per year. Ee- 
taining his per diem gives him another $150, which, with other inci¬ 
dentals, increases the revenues to fully $600 from sources outside of 
fees. It is apparent, therefore, that the Sheriff, out of his office, 
realizes more than the salary allowed him by law. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected and was paid 87.8 per cent, of his 
salary, the yearly deficit being $134 on a salary of $1,100. His net re¬ 
turn from the office, therefore, varies from $900 to the amount allowed 
by law. 

To the Auditor's salary $270 in fees per annum on the average was 
applied, leaving 84 per cent, to be paid out of the county fund. After 
paying $300 to deputies he had a net salary of $1,400, and in addition 
was paid for attendance as member of the Board of Eeview, together 
with an allowance for services as Clerk of the County Council; the 
amount therefor was not returned to this Commission. 

The Treasurer was paid 100 per cent, of $1,400 out of the county 
fund and had in addition from delinquent taxes $842, giving him a 
gross return of $2,242, out of which he paid $200 to deputies, leaving 


236 


him net $2^042. Aside from this he has per diem as member of 
Eoard of Eeview, and small returns upon dail}^ balances. 


MIAMI COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $4,378, the pay¬ 
ment out of the treasury being 60.8 per cent, of the whole. 

These payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,400 $2,400 $700 $3,100 

Sheriff. 2,300 1,169 3,949 5,118 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 100 1,500 

Auditor. 2,500 600 2,340 2,940 

Treasurer. 2,000 300 2,020 2,320 


Total. $10,600 $5,869 $9,109 $14,978 


The Clerk collected 160 per cent, on a taxation of 195 per cent., the 
excess of collection being $1,440 and taxation $2,298. Paying $1,150 
to deputies, he had net $1,830 out of fees collected. He retained his 
per diem and court allowances, giving him $700 in addition, or a 
total net of $1,950. Collecting his full salary under his own taxation, 
the Clerk collected also $2,998.36 for his predecessor, who worked 
under the old law. He had, furthermore, a surplus of fees in his fund, 
December 1, 1899, of $5,534.07, more than enough to pay two years’ 
salary. Referring to the money which the Clerk retained, that officer 
enumerated the items as follows: ^^Allowances made me by the court 
for per diem and also for compiling bar dockets for attorneys, the per 
diem amounting to $274 and the bar dockets $200.” These amounts 
were paid out of the county treasury, but the Auditor shows that the 
amount paid was $1,400, or $416 in excess of that of the Clerk, the 
average payment as shown by the Clerk being $492, and by the Audi¬ 
tor $700. 

The Sheriff collected 34.3 per cent, of his salary, or $1,102 deficit, 
while he taxed 72 per cent. On the other hand from the Auditor’s re¬ 
ports it is ascertained that the Sheriff collected and was paid at the 
rate of 83 per cent, of his salary. This would permit him to have net 
out of fees, after paying $750 to deputies, $1,205, when on his own. 
figures he would have but $419. But with incidentals, including per 
diem and care of prisoners, he had a revenue of $3,939 additional. 










237 


Approximating the total revennes we have as follows: 


Fees. $1,900 

Per diem. 530 

Jail. 3,409 

Miscellaneous. 500 


Total . $6,339 


This sum, less payment of deputies and care of prisoners and other 
expenses, would leave him net from $3,500 to $3,700, and in addition 
he has returns from services for which he is paid out of the county 
fund and of wliich he makes no reports, as serving ditch and road 
l>apers and services in insanity cases. 

The Kecorder taxed and collected 104 per cent, of his salary, the 
excess heing $900 3 xnirly, hut the Auditor showed that fees amounting 
to 179.9 per cent, were turned into the treasury, or an excess of $1,119. 
After paying $59(S to deputies he had iiet $502, and had in hjs fund, 
Deceml>er 1, 1899, a surplus of $2,554, an amount nearly ecpial to 
two years' salary. In addition to his salary he received, during the 
time considered hy the Commission, $100 extra for indexing. 

Of the Auditor's salary 77 ])er cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees amounting to about $600 the year, and the deputy 
hire to $1,320, leaving him net $1,180. To the Auditor’s net compen¬ 
sation can he added allowance for service as Clerk of County Council, 
the amount not given, as Clerk of 4’urn Tike Hoard $200, and his 
per diem as meml)er of the Board of Beview. 

' To the Treasurer's salary of $2,000 was added about $300 in 
delinquent fees, giving him net $1,700, after pa 3 dng $600 to deputies. 
This net compensation does not include services as member of the 
Board of Beview, or the revenue from the use of county funds. 

MONKOE COUNTY. 


The average 

excess of payment over 

the salary list 

was $1,650 

yearly, the ijaynient out of the 

treasury 

being 55 per 

cent, of the- 

whole. 

The payments 

were made as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,300 

$2,300 

$250 

$2,550 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

1,000 

2,000 

3,000 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,300 

150 

2,250 

2,400 

Treasurer. 

1,800 

300 

1,800 

2,100 

Total. 

$9,800 

$5,150 

$6,300 

$11,450 















238 


The Clerk reported to the Commission a collection of only 64 per 
cent, on a taxation of 92.3 per cent, of his salary, but the Auditor 
showed that during the same period he paid into the fee fund 104.3 
per cent, and was paid 95 per cent, of his salary. The Clerk stated 
that his salary was deficient by about one-half, but that is not tenable 
in view of the Auditor’s report, which is to the effect that there has 
been sufficient collection of fees to pay the Clerk with an average of 
$100 surplus each year. In addition the Clerk retained his per diem 
and court allowances, amounting to $250 the year, which gave him a 
total compensation of $2,550 After paying $1,000 to deputies he had 
net $1,500. Ilis predecessor, the Clerk remarked, went out of office 
deficient in his salar^^ but he had collected $537.55 for him. 

The Sheriff reported figures not available for correct analysis, nor 
were his reports of fees to the Auditor of any great service except to 
show an irregularity in the report of such fees; nor were the reports 
made th the State Statistician comprehensive enough to enable the 
•Commission to arrive at an exact conclusion as to what his collec¬ 
tions amounted to in the course of his term. But the returns of the 
Auditor to the Commission showed the Sheriff collected only $764 
for two years, or 17.3 per cent, of his salary, Avhile the payment on 
salary Avas 49 per cent. This gave the officer concerned an average 
of about $1,000 out of the salary alloAved by laA\', $2,200. Paying $360 
to deputies, he had net from $600 to $700. This Avas increased by 
about $2,000, including per diem and care of prisoners, Avhich, less the 
expense of the latter, gave him from $1,800 to $2,000 compensation. 

The Eecorder collected 112 per cent, of his salary, or an excess of 
$168. Here again referring to the Auditor’s report Ave find great 
irregularity in reporting fees. The Eecorder, according to the 
Auditor, reported during the tAvo years considered, only 18 per cent, of 
his collections, while his payment on salary was 85.2 per cent. The 
deficiency in collection being $1,147 and in salar}^ $207. The office is, 
no doubt, self-sustaining and the Eecorder has had his salary paid 
in full. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 93.5 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees averaging about $150 the year. As extra compensation 
he Avas paid $100 the year for making County Commissioner’s reports. 
After paying $1,900 to deputies he had a net revenue of $500. To 
his net compensation can be added a per diem for Board of Review 
services and compensation as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800 Avas added all average of $300 
in delinquent fees, which, after paying $250 to deputies, gave him 


a net of $1,850. In addition to this net compensation he received his 
per diem as member of the Board of Eeview, and revenue on deposits 
of county funds and loans thereon. 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY. 

The average yearly excess of payment over the salary list was 
^7,621, the payment out of the treasury being 33.8 per cent. 


The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,800 

$2,800 

$680 

$3,480 

Sheriff. 

2,800 

2,800 

5,281 

8,081 

Recorder. 

1,600 

1,600 


1,600 

Auditor. 

2,900 

400 

2,900 

3,300 

Treasurer...... 

2,200 

1,200 

2,260 

3,460 

Total.... 

$12,300 

$8,800 

$11,121 

$19,921 


The Clerk collected 171.8 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
■250 per cent., and from the Auditor’s report it was learned that he 
turned into the county treasury 170 per cent, of his collections, the 
excess being $4,400 the year and collections $2,000. He retained his 
per diem and other allowances amounting to $680 per year. He still 
further increased his compensation with 8 per cent, of all collections 
for the county on change of ^^enue costs. With the salary and allow¬ 
ances and commission as named he has had an average income of 
$3,680 per year. Paying $1,300 to deputies he has had net $2,280. 
The Clerk wrote to the Commission: ^Hn making statement of fees 
taxed, from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, I have found about two- 
thirds uncollectible. I, therefore, consider the costs paid about two- 
thirds of that taxed.” This can be accepted as a general rule govern¬ 
ing the taxation and collection of all costs throughout the State. Mr. 
•Sparks had only his own collections to look after, as those of his 
predecessor, who worked under the old law, were collected by him¬ 
self, but under his own collection Mr. Sparks had a surplus in his 
fund, December 1, 1899, of $1,233.76, an amount almost equal to two 
quarters’ salary. The collection of fees in this county have been very 
satiMactory, as not only the Clerk, but the Eecorder and Sheriff 
report a small surplus in their fund. The ex-Sheriff stated that while 
he had to have his successor collect for him, the present Sheriff, as 
well as the Eecorder and Clerk, have turned in more fees than their 
salaries. ■ ; 











240 


It was under existing deficiencies that the Sheriff reported to the- 
Commission collections for eighteen months of his term^ of taxation 
only 30.4 per cent, and collection 50.G per cent. On the other hand 
the Auditor showed the collections for the two years to have been on 
an average of 90 per cent., while the salary was paid in full. After 
paying $1,300 to deputies the Sheriff netted $1,500 out of his salary. 
In addition he had his per diem, amounting to $080 the year, and 
$4,600 from the care of prisoners and other incidentals, giving him a 
total net revenue from $4,500 to $5,000 the year. Iielative to the 
Sheriff, the Auditor reported to the Commission the following as two- 
years^ payments: 


On salary. .$4,400 

Care of prisoners. 4,133 

Miscellaneous. 6,429 

Total. $14,962 


This was an average yearly payment of $7,484, which, less all ex¬ 
penses of office, gave him a net return of $5,100. In addition to this 
he had resources from foreign fees amounting to a few hundred dol¬ 
lars the year. The items named as miscellaneous above were not 
sj^ecified by the Auditor or Sheriff. 

The Iiecorder taxed and collected 148 per cent, of his salary, the 
average excess being $GG(). Paying $300 to deputies, he had net 
$1,600. 

Of the Auditor's salary 87 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees averaging about $400 the year. Paying $1,600 to 
deputies, he had net $1,300 out of his salary, to which can be added 
$600 for services as Clerk of the County Council and $60 the year for 
attending Board of Peview, and $50 the year compensation as Clerk of 
the Turnpike hoard. 

To the Treasurers salary of $2,200 an average of $1,200- 
from delimpient tax fees was added. After paying $1,000 to deputies 
he had net $2,400, exclusive of his per diem as memher of the Board 
of Peview and revenue from use of county funds. 

Covering claims which were allowed and paid hy the County Com¬ 
missioners from ]\Iarch 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, the Auditor re¬ 
ported that he was paid for Assessors’ hooks $350 and annual reports 
$50. Allowances were also made to the Treasurer, Clerk and Sheriff, 
though not specified. Other allowances were made the County Sur¬ 
veyor for platting ditches. 







241 


MORGAN COUNTY. 


There Avas paid an excess over the salary list of $2,038, the payment 
out of the treasury being 41 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as folloAvs: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

12,100 

$1,800 

$750 

$2,550 

Sheriff. 

1,900 

1,513 

800 

2,313 

Recorder. 

1,200 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor... 


150 

2,365 

2,515 

Treasurer. 

1,800 

900 

1,860 

2,760 

Total.... 

$9,300 

$5,563 

$5,775 

$11,338 

The Clerk 

collected 121.7 

per cent.. 

Avhile he reported to 


Auditor 130 per cent., his taxation being 127.2 per cent, of his salary, 
the average excess of taxation being $575 and collection $450. The 
Clerk reporting turned all fees into the treasury, his net salary being 
$2,100. This officer had been but a few months in office when the 
Commission called upon him for his report, but during that time he 
had collected $453.82 for his predecessor, who, on going out of office, 
received his salary in full. Illustrative of the divers methods of 
transacting the Clerk^s business in the several counties of the State 
Ave haA'c the following from the Clerk of Morgan as to conditions 
existing in his office: ^‘^My predecessor had a Avay of doing business 
I can not explain. I construe the law of 1895 to mean that I shall 
have $2,100 and no more out of the office from fees collected, and 
further that all fees should be accounted for. My predecessor con¬ 
strued the same law that he was to have all insanity fees, per diem. 
Circuit Court alloAvances and all miscellaneous fees.’^ No surplus is 
being carried in the fee fund of this county, as all the fees are not kept 
separate, but paid directly into the county treasury. 

The Sheriff collected 84.9 per cent, on a taxation of 115.5 per cent, 
of his salary, or an excess of $295 in taxation and a deficit of $287 
in collection. His average compensation out of fees collected for the 
period reported Avas $1,013, after paying $600 the year to deputies. 
The Auditor shoAved, hoAvever, that the collections and payments had 
been 73.7 per cent., or an average deficiency of $500, Avhich is at the 
rate of $800 net, after taking out deputy hire. With incidentals 
amounting to $800, he has had a total net from $1,600 to $1,800 the 
year. 


16—F. AND S. Com. 









24-2 


The Eecorder taxed and collected 112.6 per cent., or an excess of 
$152. lie reported to the Auditor collections amounting to a trifle 
over 100 per cent. After paying $850 to deputies, he had net $1,850. 

Of the Auditor's salary 9-1.2 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the remainder being made up of $150 in fees. After paying 
$850 to deputies he had $1,450 net, to which can be added $50 the 
year for services as Clerk of the Turn Pike Board and $250 compensa¬ 
tion for services as Clerk of County Council. Respecting extra pay¬ 
ments the Auditor reported: ^^On account of the attitude of our 
County Attorney very few extras have been claimed; all that I can 
give 3^ou are by the Auditor for Board of Review $125, Clerk of Turn 
Pike Board $30, Treasurer as member of Board of Review $175. The 
Clerk received as commission on collecting change of venue costs a 
considerable sum, but the amount does not appear upon the records 
of m}” offlce. The Clerk also had a contract for indexing records 
which would probably have amounted to $3,000 or $4,000, but it 
was rescinded. IIis compensation was to have been three cents for 
each index and cross index. In addition to other payments many 
Auditors receive fees for road tax leases and examining semi-annual 
reports of Township Trustees amounting from $200 to $250 the year. 
They also receive from $25 to $1,000 the year from incorporated 
cities and towns for placing a city tax on duplicates. The Treasurer 
also gets a compensation for collecting city taxes.’’ 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800 was added $900 in delinquent 
fees, giving him a net salary of $1,700, after paying $1,000 to deputies. 
This does not include payment for attendance as member of Board of 
Review and perquisites of office. 

NEWTON COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $683, the pay¬ 
ment out of the treasury being 43.4 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

. $1,300 

$1,200 

$100 

$1,300 

Sheriff. 

. 1,300 

1,073 

500 

1,573 

Recorder. 

. 900 

900 


900 

Auditor. 

. 1,400 

250 

1,260 

1,510 

Treasurer. 

. 1,000 

300 

1,000 

1,300 

Total... 

. $5,900 

$3,723 

$2,860 

$6,583 

The Clerk 

collected and was 

paid 108 per cent, of his 

salary accord- 


ing to the Auditor’s returns, while the Clerk in his report to the Com¬ 
mission showed that he was paid 108 per cent, of his salary and col- 













243 


lected 119.9 per cent., and that the taxation was 124.3 per cent. The 
discrepancy of collection between the Auditor’s report and that of 
the Clerk to the Commission arises from the fact that the Clerk in- 
•cliided in his report to the Auditor his per diem, which until ahont 
the date of his communicating with the Commission he held out, hut 
afterward turned into the treasury. The apparent deficiency of his 
collection and salary paid under the law is so slight that the Commis¬ 
sion is of the opinion that he makes his salary of $1,300. After paying 
$420 to deputies he has net $880. 

The Sheriff collected 82.5 per cent, on a taxation of 110 per cent. 
On the other hand he reported to the Auditor collection and payment 
of salary thereon of 95 per cent. He evidently has his salary paid in 
full out of fees collected, all of which he says he turns into the 
treasury, including per diem. \Yith incidentals amounting to $500 the 
3 ^ear from hoard of prisoners, etc., he has a net return of $1,300. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 111.3 per cent.; on the other hand 
the Auditor showed that he turned into the treasury only 14G.2 per 
cent, of his collections. Paying $300 to deputies he had a net return 
of $600. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 62.9 per cent, was paid out of the county, 
treasury, the remainder being covered by $250 average in fees. Pay¬ 
ing $500 to deputies he had net $900, and was allowed $50 for extra 
tax duplicates and $60 for Board of Review services, to which can he 
added compensation for services as Clerk of County Council, the 
amount not given. 

The Treasurer received $1,000 from the county fund, to which 
can be added an average of $300 in delinquent fees. Paying $450 to 
deputies he had net $850, not including his per diem. Board of 
Review services; or revenue from the use of county funds. 


NOBLE COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment over the salary list was $1,620 
yearly, the payment out of the treasury being 45.6 per cent, of the 


whole. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. 


Clerk. $2,400 

Sheriff. 2,200 

Recorder. 1,400 

Auditor. 2,500 

Treasurer. 2,100 


$10,600 


Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

$2,250 

$150 

$2,400 

2,000 

1,000 

3,000 

1,400 


1,400 

300 

2,260 

2,560 

700 

2,160 

2,860 

$6,650 

$5,570 

$12,220 


Total 












244 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 102.1 per cent, on a taxa¬ 
tion of 120 per cent., but the Auditor showed that while the Clerk 
was paid his full salary, he turned in fees amounting to only 82.9 per 
cent. After paying $900 to deputies he had $1,500 net compensation. 
He collected $2,418 for his predecessor, which, like all other fees, was 
paid directly into the treasury, as no separate account was kept of 
the fees collected. Hence, although the collection of fees is more than 
sufficient to meet salaries, no surplus appears relative to the collections 
of any of the officers, as this money loses its identity with the other 
money in the treasury. 

Harry Bell, Sheriff, made no return of fees taxed and collected 
for the time specified in this report, but from the Auditor’s showing 
the Sheriff turned in 63.6 per cent., including per diem, and was paid 
his full salary, although the deficiency of collection was $843. From 
the State Statistician’s tables it is learned that the receipts were 75.4 
per cent., or $341 deficit. However, having been paid his salary in 
Tull his net salary has been $1,000, and in addition he has received 
about $500 from incidentals, making his total average net $1,500. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 124.1 per cent, of his salary, an 
excess of $342. Paying $300 to deputies he had net $800, to which 
he added fees for acknowledgments, etc. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 88 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees averaging $300 the year. Paying $900 to deputies 
he had net $1,600, to which can be added $250 for County Council 
services. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,100, $700 in delinquent fees was 
added, leaviug him net $2,100, after paying deputy hire out of delin¬ 
quent tax fees. 


OHIO COUNTY. 


There was an average yearly payment of $1,023 less than the salary 
list, the payment out of the treasury being 64.3 per cent. 

The payments were made as follows: 


Salary Allowed. 


Clerk. $1,000 

Sheriff. 1,000 

Eecorder. 800 

Auditor. 1,100 

Treasurer. 900 


$4,800 


Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

$518 

$220 

$738 

418 

282 

7oa 

289 


289 

72 

1,028 

1,100 

50 

900 

959 

$1,347 

$2,430 

$3,777 


Total 












245 


The Clerk reported a taxation of 85 per cent, and collection of‘ 
52,2 per cent., the average deficit in taxation being $150 and collec¬ 
tion $418. He made no return to the Auditor of per diem and court 
allowances, which brought his revenue up to nearly $750. He col¬ 
lected $300 for his predecessor, showing that in continuing collections 
through a considerable time the taxation of fees varying hut little 
from that reported to this Commission, there would still be a defi- 
eiency long after the Clerk had gone out of office. 

The Sheriff collected 41.5 per cent, on a taxation of 53: per cent., 
the average deficit of taxation being $469 and collections $581. This 
gave him a return of $420 the year on an average from fees collected. 
Adding to this the incidentals of revenue of which he made no return 
to the Auditor, in all $200, would give him, since he, has no deputies, 
an average net return of $620. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected only 36.2 per cent, of his salary, 
the yearly deficit being $510, his net return being $289 out of a 
possible salary of $800. 

The Auditor was paid 96.7 per cent, of his salary out of the county 
fund, with from $72 to $100 in fees. To this can be added his per 
diem as member of the Board of Review and compensation for services 
as Clerk of County Council, not reported to the Commission. 

The Treasurer was paid $900 out of the county fund and in addition 
received an average of $50 in delinquent fees, which about covered 
his deputy hire, thus giving the Treasurer his full salary net., 

ORANGE COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment over the salary list was $583 the 
year, the parent out of the treasur}^ being about 53 per cent, of the 
whole. 


The payments 

were: 




Clerk. 

Sheriff. 

Recorder. 

Auditor. 

Treasurer. 

Salary Allowed, 
$1,700 

1,700 

1,100 

1,800 

1,500 

Fees. 

$1,582 

868 

815 

260 

250 

County Fund. 
$118 

1,230 

1,700 

1,560 

Total. 

$1,700 

2,098 

815 

1,960 

1,810 

Total. 

$7,800 

$3,775 

$4,608 

$8,383 


The Clerk collected 97.1 per cent., including per diem and allow- 
ances, and yet he had $100 deficit each year. His reports to the 
Auditor show collection and payment on salary of 73.1 per cent., the 













240 


deficit being so small he evidently makes his salary out of fees and per 
diem, and paying $000 to deputies he has a net return of $1,100. 
But previous to the Clerk who made the report to this Commission 
taking charge of the office the per diem had been retained, but it is 
now required to be paid into the treasury. He had collected during 
his term of service $318 for his predecessor, who w^as paid in full on 
going out of office, so the Auditor reported: ‘^^The outgoing Clerk 
collected a little more than his salary, the surplus being turned into- 
the county fund.’^ 

The Sheriff had an excess of taxation of $650 and deficiency of 
collection $881; but there was a disagreement in his figures, when he 
further said that there was only a deficit of $900 in his salary. On 
the other hand the Auditor showed a deficit of $712. From these 
two sources of information it is believed the collections have been 
from 51 per cent, to 57.5 per cent, of the Sheriff's salary and the taxa¬ 
tion 132.4 per cent. Paying $250 to deputies the Sheriff had an aver¬ 
age net salary of about $1,000. But by his percentage of collections 
calculated on the figures reported to this Commission he has had 
net only $612, and under the Auditor’s showing $828. However, the 
Sheriff has told the Commission that his net salary is $1,000 out of 
fees. 

Approximating the full returns from this office we have: 


From fees. $900’ 

Per diem. 225 

Jail. 1,230 

Miscellaneous. 200 


Total. $2,555 


Less deputy hire and care of jail this would give him about the 
salary allowed by law. 

In the Kecorder’s office the annual deficit has been from $327 to 
$500, the average net salary being $815, the percentage of taxation, 
collection and payment averaging 71.1 per cent. 

The Auditor was paid 85.6 per cent, out of the county fund, the 
remainder being covered by fees averaging $260 the year. Paying 
$700 to deputies he had net $1,100, to which can be added $60 as 
per diem for attending Board of Eeview and $400 as compensation 
as Clerk of County Council. 

The Treasurer was paid $1,500 from the county fund and added 
thereto an average of $250 in delinquent tax fees. Paying $500 to 
deputies he had net $1,250, exclusive of per diem as member of Board 
of Review and perquisites of office. 








247 


OWEN COUNTY. 

There was an average payment of $330 less than the salary list, the 
payment out of the treasury being 57.8 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were: 


Cleik. 

Salary Allowed, 
$1,800 

Fees. 

$1,500 

County Fund. 
$300 

Total. 

$1,800 

Sheriff. 

1,800 

850' 

650 

1,500 

Recorder. 

1,100 

600 


600 

Auditor. 

1,900 

200 

1,760 

1,960 

Treasurer. 

1,500 

350 

1,560 

1,910 

Total.... 

$8,100 

$3,500 

$4,270 

$7,770 


The Clerk, with the use of his per diem, about made his salary of 
$1,800; in fees he collected 83.3 per cent, on a taxation of 97.2 per 
cent., the average deficit of taxation being $50 and collection $300. 
To this he added about $210 the year in per diem and allowances 
which was turned into the treasury by his predecessor, whose de¬ 
ficiency in salary therefore Avas $700 at the close of his four years^ 
term. The Clerk paying $500 to deputies had net, including per 
diem, about $1,300. The Clerk stated that he collected $450 for 
his predecessor. 

The Sheriff collected 68 per cent, on a taxation of 75 per cent., 
the yearly deficiency of taxation being $450 and collection $573. 
Paying $100 to deputies he had net on the yearly collections about 
$1,100. He turned into the treasury his per diem and allow^ances 
and retained payment for care of prisoners and turnkeys’ fees amount¬ 
ing to about $300 the year, giving him a total net revenue of from 
$1,300 to $1,400. To these sums can be added about $250 covering 
foreign fees and other incidentals. 

The Eecorder taxed 81.9 per cent, of his salary and collected 50.9 
per cent., his deficiency in taxation averaging $200 and collections 
$539 the year. Paying nothing to deputies he had net from $500 to 
$700 the year. 

Joseph W. Workman, the Auditor of the county, up to Nov. 14, 
1899, gave no attention to the requests of the Commission and the 
report came from William M. Free, the successor, who was unable to 
give much information. His report was particularly deficient in the 
fees returned by the county officers to the Treasurer and in salaries 
paid thereon from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899. To his own 
salary an average of $200 in fees was applied, the remainder, 94 per 
cent., being paid from the county fund. He paid $900 to deputies, 











248 


leaving him $1,000 net, exclusive of $200 as compensation for Clerk 
of County Council and per diem for attending Board of Eeview. 

Benjamin T. Fisher, Treasurer, failed to report, but to his salary 
of $1,500, $350 in fees was applied, giving him total, with per diem for 
attending Board of Review, $1,910; to this can be added the perqui¬ 
sites that come to him in the transaction of business in his office. 

PARKE COUNTY. 

The average payment over the salary list was $1,033, the payment 
out of the treasury being about 36 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments weFe as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,100 

$1,823 

$277 

$2,100 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

887 

1,636 

2,523 

Recorder. 

1,300 

1,300 


1,300 

Auditor. 

2,300 


2,360 

2,360 

Treasurer. 

1,800 

450 

1,800 

2,250 

Total,... 

$9,500 

$4,460 

$6,073 

$10,533 


The Clerk collected 100 per cent., including per diem, on a taxa¬ 
tion of 132 per cent., the excess of taxation being $716. However, 
the Auditor showed collections on the part of the Clerk at 91.3 per 
cent, of his salary, the payments being the same thereon. It can not 
be questioned but that he received his full salary, out of which, paying 
$720 to deputies, he had $1,380 net. The Clerk collected $907.84 
for his predecessor; while doing this his collection under his own taxa¬ 
tion was still $100 short of his salary, as he had been since entering 
office lessening a large deficiency that had accrued during his first 
year. In the course of that year his collections were only sufficient to 
pay within $600 of his salary, and after paying his deputies he had 
only $840 left for his own use. 

The Sheriff taxed 119 per cent, or $230 excess, and collected 87.6 
per cent., including per diem, or a deficit of $247. He had received, 
on an average, $887 the year from fees, out of which he paid $600 
to deputies, giving him but $287 net from fees, but he had on an 
average $722 from care of prisoners and washing therefor and $100 
in turnkeys^ fees, giving him a total revenue of between $1,600 and 
$1,800. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 110 per cent, of his salary, an ex¬ 
cess of $131. Paying nothing to deputies he had net $1,300. 

The fees of the Auditor averaged about $200 the year, but they 
were turned directly into the treasury and therefrom 100 per cent. 














249 


of his salary was paid. Paying to deputies $1,200 he had net $1,100, 
-and in addition he received $60 the year for attending the Board of 
Eeview and an amount for compensation as Clerk of the County 
Council, not given, and, further, he was paid hy the townships for 
gravel road work. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800 was added about $450 in delin¬ 
quent tax fees. Paying $780 to deputies he had net about $1,470. 

PERRY COUNTY. 

There was an average payment of $499 less than the salary list, 
the payment out of the treasury being about 49 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,000 $1,600 $129 $1,729 

Sheriff. 1,900 826 600 1,426 

Recorder. 1,200 1,000 86 1,086 

Auditor. 2,100 600 1,600 2,200 

Treasurer. .. 1,700 200 1,760 1,960 


Total. $8,900 $4,226 $4,175 $8,401 


The Clerk reported a taxation nearly even with his salary, being 
99.1 per cent., but his collections were only 76.4 per cent, of it. 
However, his report to the Auditor showed the same per cent, of col¬ 
lections with 80 per cent, paid on salary, the deficit in collection being 
$470. He had an average of about $130 the year by retaining 
his per diem and court allowances. He paid nothing to deputies, or 
rather no stipulated sums, since he had his father, wife and sister to 
.assist him. He collected $345 for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff’s fees fell far short of the salary allowed under the 
law, as the collections reported to this Commission were only 27 per 
eent. of his salary on a taxation of 39 per cent., the deficit in collec¬ 
tion being $1,387 and taxation $1,158. This agrees with the returns 
the Sheriff made to the x4uditor except that the latter officer showed 
that the Sheriff was paid 43.5 per cent, of his salary instead of 39 per 
cent. It is believed that his total revenue averages, from fees, about 
$826, out of which, after paying $300 to deputies, he has net $536. 
His per diem and care of prisoners will average about $600 the year 
additional, giving him a total average net of $1,336. 

The Recorder, under a taxation of 90 per cent., collected 84.7 per 
•cent, of his salary. His average return from the office was about 
$1,000, out of which he had $900 net, after paying $100 to deputies, 












250 


but he was allowed $350 for indexing, which gave him an extra 
yearly amount $86 on the average. This, with other incidentals, prob¬ 
ably made the office net him about $1,100. 

To the Auditor only 72 per cent, of his salary was paid out of the 
treasury, the remainder being covered by fees averaging $600 the 
year. He was allowed in addition $100 the year far making ^ssessors^ 
books, giving him a total of $1,120, after paying $1,080 to deputies^ 
To this can be added $600 for services as Clerk of the County 
Council. 

To the Treasurers salary of $1,700 was added an average of $200 
per year from delinquent tax fees. Paying $900 to deputies, he had 
net $1,000, not including per diem for attendance on Board of Eeview 
and perquisites of office. 

The extra amounts allowed for work as reported by the Auditor in¬ 
cluded $70 to the Treasurer for maldng index to duplicates. There- 
never has been a surplus in any of the several fee funds of this county. 


PIKE COUNTY. 


The average payment over the salary list was $403, the payment 
out of the treasury being about 52 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,000 

$1,705 

$192 

$1,897 

Sheriff. 

1,900 

925 

912 

1,837 

Recorder. 

1,200 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor. 

2,100 

130 

1,979 

2,109 

Treasurer. 

1,700 

500 

1,760 

2,260 

Total. 

$8,900 

$4,460 

$4,843 

$9,303 


The Clerk collected 85.2 per cent, on a taxation of 106.1 per cent.,, 
the excess of taxation amounting to $125 and deficiency of collection 
$295. His average collection of fees was $1,700 the year, out of 
which he paid $325 to deputies, leaving him net $1,375; in addition, 
he had $192 on the average per diem, giving him $1,567 the year. 
The predecessor of the Clerk reporting to the Commission served 
under the old law, and the incumbent, while collecting under his own 
taxation of the law of ^95, also collected a considerable amount, the- 
figures not stated, for his predecessor. The incumbent attributed 
his inability to meet his salary under the present law to ^ffiaving to> 
do too much work for nothing.” 












251 


The Sheriff collected 49 per cent, of his salar}^, on a taxation of 
63.4 per cent., the deficiency of taxation being $695 per year and col¬ 
lection $975. Paying $350 to deputies he had net, out of fees, $575. 
He retained his per diem, amounting to $200 the year, and about 
$700 from care of prisoners, giving him a total revenue of from $1,200- 
to $1,500 the year. 

The Kecorder in this county, Nathaniel Corn, failed to report to 
the Commission, but from the Auditors reports it is ascertained that 
the collections of the Eecorder for the two years specified were 
$2,742.50, or 114.2 per cent, of his salary. He had his salary allowed 
him by law with very little payment for deputy hire. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 93.8 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees averaging about $130 the year. Paying $900 to 
deputies he had a net salary of $1,200, with $60 additional for attend¬ 
ance on Board of Peview, to which can be added $400 for services 
as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,700 was added $500 in delinquent 
tax fees. Paying $600 to deputies he had $1,600 net, and in addition 
compensation for services as member of Board of EevieAv and per¬ 
quisites of office. 


PORTER COUNTY. 

The average excess of payment over the salary list was $3,381, the 
payment out of the treasury being about 53 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,900 $2,900 $843 $3,743 

Sheriff. 2,600 1,500 2,251 3,751 

Recorder . 1,500 1,500 37 1,537 

Auditor. 2,600 325 2,847 3,172 

Treasurer. 1,800 550 2,028 2,578 


Total. $11,400 $6,775 $8,006 $14,781 


The Clerk has two courts, Superior and Circuit, for the latter, 
under the law of ’95 he was allowed $2,300, but on the creation of the 
former he was given $600 additional, or $2,900 total. He has reported 
a collection of 94.4 per cent, on a taxation of 135.5 per cent, and a 
full payment of salary, but for the two years covered by this report 
the Auditor showed that the Clerk turned into the fee fund only 
57.7 per cent., and drew out his full salary under the law of ’95. 
This is a difference of $2,177 between the Clerk reporting to this 
Commission of collections and the return of such fees to the County 












252 


Auditor. It is assumed that the Clerk, under such conditions, does 
not fail to realize his full salary from the two courts. He retained 
his per diem and court allowances, which amount, on an average, to 
$843, giving him a total compensation of from $3,700 to $3,900 the 
year. He did not report the amount paid to deputies, hut, evidently, 
has net, out of his office, not less than $3,000. The predecessor of the 
Clerk worked under the law of ^79 and was entitled to all his fees, of 
which, up to the date of making his report, the incumbent of the 
office had collected from $1,500 to $2,000. 

The Sheriffis salary under the same conditions appl 3 dng to the 
Clerk was also increased. The salary allowed under the law of ’95 
being $2,000, and after the creation of the Superior Court $600 more. 
Of this salary, during the two years covered by this report, he collected 
on an average only 40 per cent, on a taxation of 73.4 per cent, to draw 
from; but the Auditor shows, notwithstanding the extreme shortage 
of collection, that the Sheriff was paid 95.2 per cent, of his salary. 
This payment was also confirmed by the Sheriff himself, but the Audi¬ 
tor reported the collection to have been 73.4 per cent, instead of 40 per 
cent. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Sheriff has been 
collecting about $1,500 to $2,000 of his salary in fees, leaving him net 
from $1,000 to $1,500 after paying $500 to deputies. In addition he 
has an average per diem of $975 from Commissioners’, Circuit and Su¬ 
perior courts, and further an average of $1,200 for care of prisoners, 
giving him net, less deputy hire, from $2,600 to $3,100. The amount 
paid out of the treasuy to the Sheriff included $375 for jury sum¬ 
mons, ditch notices and highway reviews. The deficiency in the 
Sheriff’s salary from fees is attributed to slow collections. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 102.9 per cent., or, according to 
his report to the State Statistician, 122.6 per cent. Paying $700 to 
deputies he had net $800 out of his sala,ry of $1,500. He was allowed 
$25 for making annual reports to the State Statistician and retained 
what he was paid, and further he received from the treasury $37 for 
extra work. 

To the Auditor’s salary an average of $325 was applied in fees, 
the remainder, 80.3 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury. 
He was allowed $100 per year for making assessor’s books, his total 
average net being $1,300, after paying $1,400 to deputies. To this 
can be added $486 yearly for extra work not enumerated in the above 
table. 


253 


The Auditor enumerated payments out of the treasury to the follow¬ 
ing officers during the two years covered by this report: 


Auditor.Board of Review. 

Assessors’ books. 

Indexing Commissioners’ reports. 

Clerk.Making reports of docket fees and other reports 

Extra salary Superior Court. 

Recorder.Statistical reports. 

Sheriff.Summoning jury. 

Serving road notice. 

Extra salary of Superior Court. 

Treasurer.Board of Review. 

Collectors’ books. 


$112 

350 

87 

264 

1,200 

50 

658 

332 

1,200 

112 

140 


Total. $4,505 

All these claims were paid on approval by the County Commis¬ 
sioners. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,800 was added $550 from delinquent 
tax fees, giving him a net compensation of $1,550 after paying $800 
to deputies. This does not include the extra work noted in the above 
nor perquisites of office. 


POSEY COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment over the salary list was $2,918, the 
payment out of the treasury being 52 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Alloived. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,200 

$2,200 

$300 

$2,500 

Sheriff. 

2,100 

1,200 

2,112 

3,312 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,226 


1,226 

Auditor. 

2,400 

350 

2,170 

2,520 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

1,400 

1,960 

3,360 

Total .... 

$10,000 

$6,376 

$6,542 

$12,918 


The Clerk collected 120 per cent., or an excess of $455 on a taxation 
of 134 per cent., an excess- of $800. His fees turned into the treas¬ 
ury were to the full amount of his collections, and he was paid 
102.7 per cent. He paid $480 to deputies, leaving him net $720 out 
of fees. Eetaining his per diem and court allowances, amounting to 
$300 the year, he had a total net compensation of $2,020. He was his 
own predecessor and served under the old law, therefore, while col¬ 
lecting fees under his salary he collected a large amount of fees which 































254 


he applied to his own use. Under the law of 1895 he has always col¬ 
lected enongli to meet his salary with a surplus, which amounted, De¬ 
cember 1, 1899, to $1,250, more than half a year’s salary. 

The Sheriff oollected 58 per cent, of his salary, while his taxation 
was about 64.7 per cent., the deficit being $879 and $720 respectively. 
He turned into the treasury, according to.the Auditor, 70 per cent, 
and drew out 72 per cent., and during practically the same period 
reported to the State Statistician that his receipts were 88.7 per cent, 
of his salary collected. His average collections are from $U000 to 
$1,500 yearly, and his net, after paying deputies $600, from $400 to 
$900 yearly out of fees. He retained his per diem amounting to $300, 
and had in addition about $1,800 from jail and other incidentals. 
He, therefore, realized from his office, less deputy hire, from $2,500 
to $3,000 the year. At the time of his reporting to the Commission 
in July 1899 the Clerk had paid him no fees for services since the 
preceding January, but as can be seen, his revenue from jail and other 
sources more than made up his salary. 

James E. Anderson, Recorder, did not report, but his successor 
•sent in a taxation and collection of about 83 per cent. The Auditor 
showed that the fees of the Recorder’s office turned into the treasury 
were 95 per cent., while the State Statistician gave them at 89 per 
•cent. Paying $300 to deputies, the Recorder liad $926 net out of fees. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 85 per cent, was paid out of the treasury, 
;and after deducting $1,000 deputy hire he had a net salary of $1,400, 
the fees averaging $350 the year. To this can be added compensation 
for services on Board of Review and $400 salary as Clerk of the 
-County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,900, paid out of the treasury, 
$1,400 in delinquent fees was added, leaving net $2,880, after paying 
$720 to deputies. Iffiis does not include per diem for serving as 
member of Board of Review or the perquisites of office. 

PULASKI COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,058, the 
payment out of the treasury being 40 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk... 

$1,400 

$1,400 

$160 

$1,560 

Sheriff. 

1,400 

1,348 

500 

1,848 

Recorder. 

1,100 

1,100 


1,100 

Auditor. 

1,600 

385 

1,215 

1,600 

Treasurer. 

1,200 

450 

1,200 

1,650 

Total.... 

$6,700 

$4,683 

$3,075 

$7,758 












255 


The Clerk collected 130 per cent, of his salary and in addition $160 
per diem, which, after paying $400 to deputies, gave him net $1,160. 
He collected $400 for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff reported to the Commission that his office was self- 
sustaining, hut that the collections for the two years co'vered by this 
investigation had been slightly deficient, amounting to 90.3 per cent., 
while the taxation was 128.6 per cent. He said his net salary Avas $900 
after paying $672 to deputies. To make his net amount as stated he 
must have had a revenue from fees of $1,572, or $172 more than his 
salary. He, no doubt, included in this part of the revenue derived 
from incidentals, Avhich, altogether, gave him $500 additional. From 
the figures available the Commission is of the opinion that he has a 
total revenue of $2,000, including care of i3risoners, etc., giving him 
net his salary alloAved under the laiv. 

The Kecorder taxed and collected 158.3 per cent, of his salary. 
Paying $400 to deputies he had net $700. 

The report of the Auditor, James N. Hayworth, Avhose term ex¬ 
pires November 16, 1902, was unsatisfactory. But it is learned from 
the reports of the x4uditor and State Statistician that his fees 
amount to about $385 yearly. The payment of salary out of the 
county fund being 76 per cent., Avhich Avith about $500 deputy hire 
Avould give him net $1,100, not including compensation for services 
as member of Board of KevicAv and other extras, including allowances 
as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurers salary of $1,200 Avas.added $450 from delinquent 
tax fees. Paying $450 to deputies, he had net $1,200, not including 
the extras and perquisites accruing to tbe Treasurer’s office. 

PUTNAM COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,450, the 
payment out of the treasury being 52 per cent, of the Avhole. 

The payments Avere as folloAvs: 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 

Clerk. $2,200 $1,900 $300 $2,200 

Sheriff. 2,100 1,700 1,500 3,200 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 . 1,400 

Auditor. 2,400 200 2,200 2,400 

Treasurer. 2,000 350 2,000 2,350 


Total. $10,100 $5,550 $6,000 $11,550 


The Clerk reported no taxation, but his collection Avas 79 per cent, 
of his salaiy, with a deficit of $460 the year, but the Auditor reported 













256 


collections on the part of the Clerk and payment to him of 86.4 per 
cent., or $1,900 the year. He retained his court allowances and per 
diem amounting to $300, giving him $2,200, out of Avhich he paid 
$1,100 to deputies, and had $1,100 the year net. He collected $400' 
for his predecessor during the few months he had been in office at- 
the time of making his report. 

The Sheriff collected 58.3 per cent, on a taxation of 85.2 per cent.,, 
but it is shown that he turned into the fee fund 75.4 per cent., or 
$1,600 the year. On the other hand the Sheriff stated that his average 
collection w^as $1,200 the year. It is the opinion of the Commission 
that after paying $700 to deputies he has had net from fees from $800’ 
to $1,000. Eetaining his per diem and with compensation for care of 
prisoners he has an average of $1,500 extra, his total net compensation, 
being from $2,300 to $2,500 the year. 

The Eecorder, while reporting a taxation of only 100 per cent.,, 
collected an excess of $109 at the rate of 107.5 per cent, of his salary.. 
He turned into the fee fund his collections at this rate per cent. 
After paying $120 to deputies he had $1,280 net. 

To the Auditor’s salary about $200 in fees was applied, the remain^ 
der, 91.2 per cent., being paid out of the county fund. After payings 
$1,000 to deputies he had $1,400 net. 

The Treasurer, with $2,000 from the county fund and $350 in de¬ 
linquent fees, had net $1,150, after pa 3 dng $1,200 to deputies. 

The payments to the Treasurer and Auditor do not include the 
extras applicable to those officers for attendance on Board of Eeview,. 
services as Clerk of the County Council and perquisites from the 
Treasurer’s office. 


RANDOLPH COUNTY. 

There was an average payment of. $1,300 over the salary list, the 
payment out of the treasury being 45.8 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk.. 

$2,700 

$2,360 

$340 

$2,700 

Sheriff. 


2,100 

1,000 

3,100 

Recorder. 

1,500 

1,500 


1,500 

Auditor. 

2,800 

400 

2,400 

2,800 

Treasurer. 

2,200 

700 

2,200 

2,900 

Total. 

$11,700 

$7,060 

$5,940 

$13,000 

The Clerk 

collected 105.1 per 

cent., but reported 

no taxation. 


This collection probably includes his per diem., which averaged $340 













257 


the year. The Clerk stated that without the per diem there would he 
a deficiency. After paying $1,000 to deputies he had net $1,700. 
In addition he collected $892.84 for his predecessor, which he turned 
into the treasury as fees collected by himself. From this fact it is 
inferred that a settlement had been made with his predecessor in full, 
and whateA^er collections were made under his taxation were turned 
at once into the treasury to be credited to the fund of the incumbent. 

The Sheriff collected 100 per cent., including per diem, but re¬ 
ported no taxation. He had been in office, but a short time when he 
communicated with the Commission and said that as to the taxation 
and collection of fees he had no means of. knowing, thereby implying 
that there Avere no books in his office relati\"e to his predecessor’s busi¬ 
ness. But approximating the total revenues from figures available, we 
have: 


From fees. $2,100 

Per diem. 500 

Jail. 500 

Miscellaneous. 150 


Total. $3,250 


The revenues less payment of deputies and care of jail would give 
him from $2,100 to $2,400 net. 

The Itecorder taxed and collected 158.9 per cent, of his salary, the 
excess being $1,333. He paid nothing to deputies and realized his full 
salary. 

Of the Auditor’s salary about 86 per cent. Avas paid out of the 
county treasury, the fees amounting to $400 a year. Paying $1,500 
to deputies he had $1,300 net. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,200, $700 in delinquent fees was 
added, the fees about covering the amount paid to deputies. 

The returns from this county Avere very unsatisfactory, the Auditor 
declining to give the amount of fees collected by each county officer 
and turned in during the period from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 
1899. His report Avas lacking in other essentials to enable the Com¬ 
mission to give anything beyond an approximation of the revenues 
of each office, nor Avas this information supplied by the officers them¬ 
selves; but there can be added, without question, to the Auditor’s 
and Treasurer’s salary payment for attending the Board of Keview 
and perquisites of office to the Treasurer’s and compensation to the 
Auditor for services as Clerk of the County Council. 


17—F. AND S. Com. 








¥58 


RIPLEY COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,726, the 
payment out of the treasury being 47 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,200 $2,200 $350 $2,550 

Sheriff. 2,000 2,000 700 2,700 

Recorder. 1,400 1,200 135 1,335 

-Auditor. 2,300 300 2,371 2,671 

Treasurer. 1,800 300 1,870 2,170 


Total. $9,700 $6,000 $5,426 $11,426 


AVhile the taxable resources of the Clerk’s office in Ripley County 
averaged $1,300 in excess of his salaiy, he collected only 87.7 per cent., 
the taxation being 160 per cent. However, his predecessor collected 
his salary in full, with little or no surplus, but the incumbent is 
apparently satisfied with the conditions and the salary allowed by 
law. He, evidently, in time will collect the full amount allowed him 
from fees. He retains, of which he made no return to the Auditor, 
court allowances, fees from insanity inquests and compensation for 
certified records. He is also compensated, under contract with the 
County Commissioners, for recording evidence at Coroners’ inquests at 
10 cents per hundred words, the additional compensation thus enu¬ 
merated amounting to about $350 the year. In all he has received 
out of fees and allowances from $2500 to $2,600. Paying $900 to 
deputies leaves him from $1,600 to $1,700. He also collected, up to 
the time of his reporting to the Commission, $340 for his predecessor. 
While the Clerk stuted that he retained his per diem and court allow¬ 
ances, the Auditor reported to the Commission that the officer paid 
them into the treasury and drew them back on salary. 

The Sheriff taxed 120 per cent, and collected 85 per cent, of his 
salary, the excess being $400 in taxation with a deficit in collection 
of $300. On the other hand the Auditor returned figures to the Com¬ 
mission showing that the Sheriff had collected and. was paid only 61.7 
per cent, of his salary. It was further shown from the Sheriff’s report 
to the Commission that he was paid 95 per cent, on a collection of 
only 87.7 jier cent., but according to his reports to the Auditor on a 
collection of 81.7 per cent. He was paid in excess of fees turned into 
the treasury, as reported by the Auditor, $665, and $200 according to 
his own showing. This, in the opinion of the Commission, is really a 
self-sustaining office since the Sheriff states that his yearly deficiency 












259 


is only $100. Paying $700 out of his full salary to deputies he has a 
•net of $1,300 and an additional revenue of from $700 to $800 from per 
diem and jail. In reference to the business of his predecessor the 
Sheriff replied that he could give nothing as he had no record in his 
office. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 90.6 per cent, of his salary, his 
compensation being at this rate about $1,200 from fees. He had no 
deputy and retained in addition fees for acknowledgments, abstracts 
of title, copies of records, etc., amounting to $100 the year. The 
County Commissioners further allowed him $135 the year for extra 
work. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 87 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the remainder being covered by $300 from fees. Paying 
$624 to deputies he had net $1,676. 

In addition to his salary of $1,800 the Treasurer had $300 from 
delinquent fees. After paying $870 to deputies he had a net return 
of $1,230. 

The Auditor is allowed $350 additional as Clerk for County Council 
and he and the Treasurer $3 a day each for attending the Board of 
Review. 

RUSH COUNTY. 

The payment over the salary list averaged $2,905, the payment 
out of the treasury being about 40 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,300 $3,737 $300 $4,037 

Sheriff. 2,000 1,600 1,000 2,600 

Recorder. 1,400 1,400 68 1,468 

Auditor. 2,400 160 2,240 2,400 

Treasurer. 1,900 5t0 1,900 2,400 


Total. $10,000 $7,397 $5,508 $12,905 


Thos. M. Greene, Clerk, whose term of office expired December 1, 
3 900, failed to report, but the Auditor reported to the Commission 
that the amount of fees collected by this Clerk and paid into the 
treasury from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, wTre 188 per cent, 
of his salary, an excess of $1,437. There was nothing in these returns 
to show that the per diem and court allowances were included in the 
collections, nor was there anything relative to extra work. The 
per diem, with other allowances, will average $300 the year. Setting 











260 


that aside, the Clerk has been paid out of fees, according to the Audi¬ 
tor’s report, $3,737 yearly on a salary of $2,300. Allowing him liberal 
payment to deputies from $1,000 to $1,200 he has averaged net from 
$2,500 to $2,700 the year. 

The Sheriff collected 64 per cent, of his salary and taxed 89.3 per 
cent., the deficit of taxation being $245 and collection $725, but the 
Auditor reported that the Sheriff had paid in 84 per cen^. and had 
been paid 80 per cent, of his salary. The Sheriff’s report to the State 
Statistician disagreed essentially with that of the Auditor’s to this 
Commission. In the one instance it was shown that he had been paid 
$1,600 the year, $400 deficit, and in the other that he drew on salary 
$1,300 the year. The Commission for its calculation accepts the 
larger amount, $1,600, out of which, paying $762 to deputies, he had 
net, from fees collected, from $800 to $900. Adding about $1,000 
for per diem and care of jail he had a total net compensation of from 
$1,500 to $2,000. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 119.9 per cent, of his salary, an 
excess of $278, while he reported to the State Statistician an excess 
of $305. He was allowed $255 for re-copying old records. Paying 
$300 to deputies he had about $1,100 the year^ which plus $125 for 
extra work, would give him $1,225. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 93 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees averaging $106 per year. After paying $572 to depu¬ 
ties he had net $1,928. He was paid in addition $773 for extra work, 
or an average of $195 the year for his full term of four years, which 
gave him a net conipensation of $2,123 yearly. 

The Treasurer, to his $1,900 salary, paid out of the county fund, 
added an average of $500 in delinquent tax. Paying $600 to depu¬ 
ties he had a net total of $1,800. 

To the Auditor and Treasurer can be added payment for attending 
Board of Eeview and to the Treasurer perquisites of office and to the 
Auditor compensation, not given, as Clerk of County Council. 

Among the extra payments during the two years covered by this 
investigation were the following enumerated by the Auditor: 

Auditor.Commissioners’ annual report 

Making Assessors’ books. 

Board of Review. 

Turnpike Directors. 

Treasurer.Board of Review. 

Recorder.Making and copying. 


$988 


$100 

300 

105 

268 

105 

110 


Total 













261 


In addition to these amounts the Auditor and Treasurer were paid 
for extra services during the erection of the new courthouse, the 
work of the Treasurer being that of selling courthouse bonds. 

SCOTT COUNTY. 

The aggregate payment to county officers yearly was about $135 
over the salary list, the payment out of the treasury being 32.5 per 
cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$1,000 

$730 

$250 

$980 

Sheriff. 

1,000 

544 

422 

966 

Recorder. 

700 

550 


550 

Auditor. 

1,100 

92 

1,026 

1,118 

Treasurer.. 

800 

300 

821 

1,121 

Total .... 

$4,600 

$2,216 

$2,519 

$4,735 


Noble J. Hays, the Clerk, failed to report to the Commission, but 
the County Auditor showed that the fees turned into the treasury by 
the Clerk during the two years covered by this investigation were 73.3 
per cent, of his salary, and that he was paid a like amount. The 
Auditor said that the reports of the ClerlCs collections were made 
at very irregular periods. With court allowances and per diem 
amounting to $250 or $300 the year, it is possible for the Clerk to 
meet his salary. 

The Sheriff collected 53.3 per cent, on a taxation of 76.8 per cent. 
Pa 5 dng $300 to deputies he had net, out of fees, $241. He, too, made 
irregular reports of collections to the Auditor, the returns of the latter 
officer to the Commission showing the Sheriff’s collection on salary 
and payments thereon to have been only $462. ^ He has in addition a 
possible revenue of $422 from per diem and care of jail, which would 
give him a net compensation of between $600 and $700 the year. 

The Eecorder collected about 74.8 per cent, of his salary. His 
reports to the County Auditor of fees collected and turned in were 
very irregular. It is the opinion of the Commission that the Eecorder 
has a yearly compensation out of his fees of about $600. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 95.8 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund and $92 out of fees. Paying $600 to deputies he had a net re¬ 
turn of $500. As to the accuracy of figures relating to fees collected 
and payments made on salary to the other officers of the county the 
Auditor could not vouch, as the books covering the time of his prede¬ 
cessor had been carelessly attended to. 












262 


To the Treasurer’s salar}^ of $800; paid out of the county treasury, 
an average of $300 from delinquent fees was added, giving him 
$ 1 , 100 . 

To the Auditor and Treasurer can he added per diem for attending 
Board of Keview, to the Treasurer perquisites from office, and to the 
Auditor compensation for services as Clerk of the County Council. 


SHELBY COUNTY. 


There was an average yearly excess of payment over the salary list 
of $1,500, the payment out of the treasury being 54.5 per cent, of the 
whole. 

The-payments were distributed as follows: 


Salai'y Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 

Clerk. $2,400 $1,900 $500 $2,400 

Sheriff. 2,300 1,800 1,600 3,400 

Recorder... 1,400 1,400 100 1,500 

Auditor. 2,500 100 2,400 2,500 

Treasurer. 2,000 300 2,000 2,300 


Total. $10,600 $5,500 $6,600 $12,100 


The above payments to the various county officers are based solely 
upon the figures presented to this Commission. The Commission is 
aware of the amount of litigation and investigation that has been in 
progress in that county, and that the above presentation of payments 
is far from accurate, but it is about what those payments would be 
under normal conditions. The difficulty attending the obtaining of 
correct figures in this county was caused by missing records, relative 
to which the Auditor wrote the Commission: ^‘^Upon taking charge 
of my office I found a number of the most important books had been 
removed by some one. * Among these books were the condensed ledger, 
registry of orders and the Auditor’s fee books, and since I have taken 
charge the Commissioners’ record has been stolen.” He recorded the 
fees turned in during the two years covered by this investigation, by 
the Clerk, Recorder and Sheriff, but had no record by which to ascer- 
tain the amount paid to the officers named during the same period. 

The Clerk reported to the Commission that his collections, in¬ 
cluding per diem, were 122.1 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
156.3 per cent., the excess of the latter being $1,350 and the former 
$531. Paying $1,200 to deputies he had net $1,200 out of fees. The 
Auditor reported that he turned in fees, during the two years, amount¬ 
ing to only 103 per cent. 












263 


The Sheriff collected 68.5 per cent.' of his salary, including per 
diem, or $802 deficit. He was paid at this rate while his taxation' 
amounted to 126 per cent., hut it is learned from the State Statis¬ 
tician’s tables that his collections were 76 per cent., which, no doubt, 
is about the average return from fees collected, giving him $1,800 
from that source. After paying $1,200 to deputies he had net from 
$500 to $600. Among the payments out of the county treasury is 
not included a considerable sum amounting to nearly $1,000 for extra 
services, and in addition the incidentals from jail, which gave him 
from $1,200 to $1,600. 

Approximating the total revenues froni this office we have: 


From fees. $1,800 

Per diem. 450 

Jail. 1,250 

Miscellaneous. 1,500 

Total. $5,000 


He has realized from his office from $2,800 to $3,200 net. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected from 101 per cent, to 103 per 
cent, of his salary. Paying $330 to deputies he had $1,070 net, but 
with incidentals averaging about $100 for extra work or about $400 
for the full four years, he had an average net of $1,170 the year. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 92.7 per cent, was paid out of the treasury, 
the fees amounting to $100 per year. Paying $1,040 to deputies he 
had net $1,460. This does not include $200 compensation for Clerk 
of County Council and $60 for attending Board of Review, nor the 
amounts paid the Auditor’s predecessor for extra work, amo'unting to- 
an average of $462 the year, with an average excess of salary paid of 
$50 the year, nor otiier claims approved by the County Commissioners. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,000 was added about $300 in fees. 
After paying $1,100 to deputies he had $1,200 net, exclusive of per¬ 
quisites of office and per diem for attending Board of Review and 
payments on claims allowed by the County Commissioners. 


SPENCER COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $450 yearly, 
the payment out of the treasury being 45.5 per cent, of the whole. 
The payments were as follows: 







264 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,200 

$2,100 

$100 

$2,200 

Sheriff. 

2,100 

1,400 

700 

2,100 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,400 

350 

2,050 

2,400 

Treasurer . 

1,900 

450 

1,900 

2,350 

Total .... 

$10,000 

$5,700 

$4,750 

$10,450 


The Clerk taxed 120 per cent, of his salary and collected 90 per 
cent., hut he said he had no fear of deficiency. In this collection were 
included fees of every kind and character, all of which he paid into 
the fee fund and out of which he drew only his salary allowed by law. 
Paying $700 to deputies he had $1,500 net. He had collected for his 
predecessor $1,137.93, but as he was his own predecessor these fees 
were applied to his own use under the old law. He said there was 
enough business to about make up the salary allowed under the law. 
While he was deficient in his salary during the first two years of his 
present term, subsequent collections not only enabled him to make his 
current salary, but to cover the deficiencies that had accrued. He not 
only collected under his own taxation, under the laws of 1895 and 
1879, but had collected under the taxation of three or four predeces¬ 
sors. ^Tn regard to criminal cases,^^ he remarked, did not add in 
the fees taxed in cases that were nollied, or where the defendants 
found guilty laid out their fines in jails and penitentiaries. I only 
taxed fees in eases pending and fees in cases where there was a proba¬ 
bility of payment, or in which payment had already been made.” 

The Sheriff collected 48.3 per cent., or a deficit of $1,035 yearly, 
while he taxed 88.8 per cent, or $300 deficit. He, however, turned 
into the fee fund 66.3 per cent. He paid $720 to deputies, which left 
him net about $680. The incidentals of revenue gave him $700 more, 
or total net from $1,300 to $1,500. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 104.7 per cent, of his salary. 
After paying $175 to deputies he had a net income of $1,225. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 84 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund. Paying $900 to deputies he had net $1,500, the fees applied 
to his salary amounting to $350 the year. He was further paid for 
copying school fund record. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,900 was added $450 in delinquent 
tax fees, and after paying $925 to deputies he had net $1,425. 

To the Treasurer and Auditor can be added a compensation for 
attending Board of Review, to the Treasurer perquisites of office, and 
to the Auditor pa^rment for services as Clerk of the County Council. 












STAIIKE COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $2,049, the 
pa 3 rment out of the treasury being 42 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Ulerk. 

$1,000 

$1,000 

$300 

$1,300 

Sheriff. 

1,100 

1,100 

750 

1,850 

Eecorder. 

700 

700 


700 

Auditor. 


237 

966 

1,203 

Treasurer. 

800 

800 

896 

1,696 

Total.... 

$4,700 

$3,837 

$2,912 

$6,749 


The Clerk collected 125 per cent, on a taxation of 168.7 per cent., 
the excess of taxation being $687 and collection $257. Under the 
advice of the Judge of his court, he retained his per diem and court 
allowances, which gave him a gross amount of $1,300, out of which, 
paying $400 to deputies, he had net $900. 

The Sheriff taxed and collected 152 per cent, of his salary, but the 
Auditor showed that he turned into the fee fund only 117.7 per cent., 
and that he was paid 63.6 per cent, out of his salary. Paying $400 
to deputies he had net from fees $700. From per diem, incidentals, 
from jail, he had from $400 to $500 more, giving him a net total 
revenue of $1,200. 

Approximating the total revenues from this office we have: 


From fees. |1,289 

Jail. 500 

Per diem. 250 

Miscellaneotis. 250 


Total. 12,289 


The Eecorder collected 183 per cent, of his salar}^ which agrees 
with the report made by the Auditor of fees collected and salary paid, 
and agrees with the reports of the Eecorder to the State Statistician. 
Out of a salary ot $700 he has had a net return of $430, paying to dep¬ 
uties $270. 

The Auditor was paid out of the county fund 78.5 per cent., .his 
fees averaging $237 per year. He paid to deputies $500, leaving him 
net $600. He received $210 for making road record and attending 
Board of Eeview, which gave him $705 total average net salary. In 
addition can be added $600 as compensation as Clerk of County 
Uouncil. 

















266 


To the Treasurer's salary, paid out of the county fund, was added 
an average of $800 in delinquent tax fees, giving him a total of 
$1,600 from this source irrespective of payment for attending County 
Board of Review and perquisites of office. 

STEUBEN COUNTY. 

The payment to the county officers averaged $840 over the salary 
list yearly, the payment out of the treasury being 41.9 per cent, of the 
whole. 

The payments were made as follows: 



Salary Alloived. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk.. 

.... $1,800 

$1,640 

$180 

$1,820 

Sheriff. 

1,700 

1,700 

400 

2,100 

Recorder. 


1,100 


1,100 

Auditor. 


300 

1,660 

1,960 

Treasurer.. 

1,500 

300 

1,560 

1,860 

Total... 

$8,000 

$5,040 

$3,800 

$8,840 


The Clerk collected 123 per cent, of his salary, including per diem,, 
on a taxation of 130 per cent. He turned all fees and allowances into 
the treasury, and paying $450 to deputies had net $1,350; 

The Sheriff taxed 116 per cent, of his salary and collected 100 per 
cent. Turning all fees into the treasury, including per diem and 
allowances, he had $1,300 net out of these resources. His revenue 
from jail was small but amounted to sufficient to give him a full 
return on his salary. 

The Recorder collected 123.7 per cent, of his salary and paying $200' 
to deputies had net $900. 

Of the Auditor's salary 84.7 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, to which was added an average of $300 from fees. Paying 
$830 to deputies he had net $1,070, not including per diem for 
attending Board of Review and $200 allowed him as Clerk of County 
Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,500, paid out of the county fund, 
$300 yearly was added from delinquent fees. After paying $400 
to deputies he had net $1,400, not including per diem for attending 
Board of Review and perquisites of office. 

The Auditor reporting later to the Commission said: ^^Since the 
officers were paid out of the fees, upon the first day of January, 1900, 
the Clerk turned into the fee fund $1,359.86 above his salary, the 
Recorder $939.70 more than his salary, and the Sheriff $200. These 
sums repreisent an excess over salaries paid them for their full term 
of office.” 












207 


ST. JOSEPH COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $5,520, the- 
payment out of the treasury being about 53 per cent, of the whole. 
The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allotved. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $4,400 $4,100 $300 $4,400 

Sheriff. 3,900 2,800 2,800 5,600 

Kecorder...,..^..... 2,700 2,700 3,100 5,800 

Auditor......."..... 4,600 950 3,710 ' 4,660 

Treasurer. 3,300 600 3,360 3,960 


Total. $18,900 $11,150 $13,270 $24,420 


The Clerk collected 104 per cent, of his salary^ or an excess of 
$172, on a taxation of about 204 per cent., or an excess of $4,600. He 
paid all fees and allowances into the treasury apd paying $1,490 to- 
deputies had net $2,910. 

The Sheriff covered hut a few months in his report to the Com¬ 
mission, showing his deficiency in salary for that time to be $320, a 
rate that would' make his yearly deficit about $1,100 to $1,200, but 
the Auditor reported that during the two years covered by this 
investigation he turned in 70 per cent, of his salary and was paid the 
same amount thereon, or a net of $1,230 from collections, after paying 
$1,500 to deputies. Included in this net is about $500 per diem and 
allowances, and in addition he had a revenue of about $2,300 from the 
jail, or approximately a total, from all sources, as follows; 


From fees. $2,800 

Per diem. 500 

Jail. 2,300 

Miscellaneous. 500 


Total.... $6,100 


This would give him net, less deputy hire and care of prisoners,, 
about $4,400. . 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 150 per cent, of his salary, or an 
excess of $1,380, but he'turned into the fee fund 165 per cent., accord¬ 
ing to the Auditor's report, or an excess of $187 out of fees collected. 
He had $1,275 net after paying $1,425 to deputies. In addition he 
received $3,100 for extra work. 

To the Auditor's salary was applied $950 in fees, the remainder, 
60 per cent., being paid out of the county treasury. He made no state¬ 
ment as to his payments to deputies, nor the amount paid him for 



















268 


attending Board of Review, nor compensation as Clerk of County 
Council. 

To the $3,300 salary of the Treasurer an average of $600 in delin¬ 
quent fees was added. After paying $2,780 to deputies he had net 
$1,120, exclusive of the amount allowed him for attending Board 
■of Review and perquisites of office. 

SULLIVAN COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,800 the year, 
the payment out of the treasury being 45.3 per cent. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Ulerk. 

$2,200 

$1,800 

$400 

$2,200 

Sheriff. 

2,100 

2,100 

1,000 

3,100 

Recorder. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,400 

350 

2,050 

2,400 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

800 

1,900 

2,700 

Total. 

10,000 

$6,450 

$5,350 

$11,800 


The Clerk taxed 147 per cent, of his salary and collected 115.6 per 
eent., the excess of taxation being $1,030 the year and collection $343. 
He turned all per diem and allowances into the treasury, and paying 
$800 to deputies had $1,400 net. 

The Sheriff collected 98 per cent, on a taxation of 129 per cent., 
indicating that without much effort he makes his salary in full out 
of fees. Paying $600 to deputies he had net $1,500. The greater part 
of his term he retained his per diem and court allowances amounting 
to $400 more, which, with $600 from jail, gave him at least $2,500 net. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 128.2 per cent, of his salary, the 
average excess being $395. He practically realizes his full salary, as 
he had no deputy but his wife. 

James R. Riggs, the Auditor, failed to report, but it is learned from 
the State Statistician that his fees averaged $350, the payment of 
salary out of the treasury being 87.3 per cent., giving him $1,600 net 
after paying deputies, to which can be added his per diem for attend¬ 
ance on Board of Review and compensation as Clerk of the County 
Council, the amount not given. 

The Treasurer, Wm. R. Frakes, failed to report, but it is estimated 
that in addition to his salary of $1,900, out of the treasury, he had 
from $600 to $800 in delinquent fees, which covered his deputy hire, 
leaving him $1,900 net, plus attendance on Board of Review, per¬ 
quisites of office and other incidentals not named. 


i 













269 


SWITZERLAND COUNTY. 

The aggregate payment to the county officers was $183 less than 
the salary list, the payment out of the treasury being 54 per cent, of 
the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 


Clerk. 

Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

$1,349 

County Fund. 
$130 

Total. 

$1,479 

Sheriff. 


850 

555 

1,405 

Recorder. 

1,000 

583 


583 

Auditor. 

1,600 


1,600 

1,600 

Treasurer. 

1,400 

350 

1,400 

1,750 

Total ... 

$7,000 

$3,132 

$3,685 

$6,817 


The Clerk stated that he had never made his salary out of the fees, 
he reporting to the Commission that his collections averaged only 
68.1 per cent, of his salary, but that he had been paid 89.9 per cent, 
upon a taxation of 46.7 per cent. On the other hand he reported to 
the Auditor a collection of 80.1 per cent, and payment of salary of the 
same amount. He collected $350 for his predecessor, and for a time 
did not report his per diem, and he was allowed, for making court 
dockets and examining records as. to sureties in estates and guardian¬ 
ships, $40 the year. The Clerk further said that his deficit woidd 
average $250 per year, and we find, with allowances and per diem, he 
would still be $100 short of his salary. As he paid little or nothing to 
deputies his net return out of fees and allowances was $1,400 the year. 

The Sheriff collected 56.6 per cent, of his salary, while the taxation 
varied only a fraction from that amount. His reports of fees turned 
in to the Auditor differ but little from this showing, the difference 
in his statements to the Commission and to the Auditor being only 
$176 more in the latter instance. He further stated that his deficiency 
was $750 the year, but this can not be, as in one instance his report 
to the Commission shows he collected $850 the year and in another, the 
report to the Auditor, $938 the year. It is the opinion of the Commis¬ 
sion that $900 the year would be a safe average, out of which, paying 
$570 to deputies, he had a net return of $338. He retained his per 
diem, and that with jail would give him $555 more, or a net return 
of nearly $900. 

John W. Barnes, the Recorder, failed to report, but the Auditor 
showed that he collected and was paid 58.3 per cent, of his salary, 
the deficit being $416. His net compensation at that rate was $584. 

The Auditor had no fees to report to the Commission, so his full 
salary was paid from the county fund. In addition he was allowed 














270 


$130 for making a road record, giving him an aggregate of $1,730 
or net of $1,150, after paying deputies. This does not include per 
diem for attending Board of Review and compensation as Clerk of 
County Council. 

To the Treasurers salary of $1,400 was added an average of $350 
in delinquent tax fees, giving him net, after paying $250 to deputies, 
$1,500, plus per diem for attending Board of Review and perquisites 
of office. 


TIPPECANOE COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $8,985 the 
year, the payment out of the treasury being about 55 per cent. 

"The payments were distributed as follows: 

Salary Allowed, Fees. County Fund. Total. 


•Clerk. $3,900 $3,900 $1,120 $7,660 

Sheriff. 3,000 3,000 4,865 7,865 

Recorder. 2,000 2,000 410 2,410 

Auditor. 3,900 900 3,660 4,560 

Treasurer. 2,900 1,870 2,960 4,830 


Total. $15,700 $11,670 $13,015 $24,685 


The Clerk collected 126.4 per cent, of his salary, or an excess of 
$1,030, on a taxation of 138.8 per cent., or an excess of $1,513. The 
Auditor reported to the Commission that the Clerk turned in 90 per 
cent, and was paid a like amount. Paying $2,236 to deputies he had 
$1,664, but this was increased, on an average of $1,120, by per diem 
and for making bar dockets, giving him a total net of $2,784. He had 
a surplus, December 1, 1899, amounting to $8,816. 

. Among the extras the Clerk had was $50 the year for superintend¬ 
ing the bar dockets of each court and 50 cents for each marriage litho¬ 
graph certificate. 

The Slieritf collected 133.8 per cent, of his salary, not including 
per diem, the taxation, during the two years covered by this investiga¬ 
tion, being 27.6 per cent., or less than collections. The excess of 
taxation was $820 and collection $1,014, but the Auditor reported that 
the Sheriff turned in collections amounting to 108.1 per cent., ov $244 
excess. After paying $1,320 to deputies he had net $1,680 out of fees, 
but his per diem and care of prisoners gave him an average of $3,892, 
or a total compensation of $5,572. 












271 


Approximating the total revenues of this office we have: 


From fees. $3,500 

Per diem. 1^023 

Boarding prisoners. 2,869 

Turnkeys’ fees. 972 

Miscellaneous (foreign fees). 500 


Total. $8,864 


The Recorder taxed and collected 177.5 per cent., or an excess of 
^1,550 of his salary. Paying $1,200 to deputies he had net $800, and 
with $410 payment in extras, a total net of $1,210 the year. He 
carried a surplus in his fee fund of $4,57G. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 78.7 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the fees amounting to about $900. Paying $1,875 to deputies 
he had net $2,025 the year, wliich was increased to $2,635 on an 
average by contract for extra work, including per diem for the Board 
of Eeview, but not including $600 for services as Clerk of County 
Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,900 was added an average of $1,870 
in delinquent tax fees. Paying $1,440 to deputies he had net $3,330, 
not including per diem for attendance on Board of Review nor per¬ 
quisites of office. 

The Auditor reported small claims presented to the County Com¬ 
missioners, some of which were not allowed, but he was paid for 


School and Township Trustee settlements. $300 

Making assessors’ books. 600 

Indexing and boxing vouchers. 120 

Reporting to County Commissioners condition of school fund 100 
Reporting to County Commissioners receipts and expenditures 100 


Total. $1,220 


TIPTON COUNTY. 


The average payment over the salary list was $1,592, the payment 
out of the treasury being about 45 per cent. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 














272 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk.. 

$2, ICO 

$1,740 

$360 

$2,100 

Sheriff. 

2,000 

1,350 

1,200 

2,550 

Eecorder . 

1,500 

1,500 


1,500 

Auditor. 

2,300 

625 

1,917 

2,542 

Treasurer. 

1,800 

800 

1,800 

2,600 

Total_ 

$9,700 

$6,015 

$5,277 

$11,292 


The Clerk collected^ including per diem, 118.5 per cent, and taxed 
166.6 per cent, of his salary, the excess of taxation being $1,400 and 
collection $389. He turned into the treasury all fees, allowances and 
per diem, and paying $500 to deputies had net $1,500. December 1, 
1899, he had a surplus in his fund of $549.29. 

The Sheriff collected 85 per cent, of his salary, including per diem,, 
on a taxation of 123 per cent.; the excess of the latter was $269 and 
deficiency of the former $295. His net salary out of fees and per diem 
collected was $1,055, after paying $650 to deputies. To this can be 
added $925 for care of prisoners and turnkeys’ fees, giving him a total 
net, less expense of jail, of $1,985. 

The Eecorder collected and taxed 124.1 per cent, of his salary, the 
average excess being $362, but to the Auditor he reported that he 
turned in fees amounting to 136.7 per cent, of his salary, an excess 
of $551. Paying $480 to deputies he had $1,020, and besides, Decem¬ 
ber 1, 1899, carried a surplus in his fund of $363. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 79.9 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the fees averaging $625 the year.' After paying $750 to depu¬ 
ties, he had a net return of $1,550, to which he added $217 per year 
for making assessors’ books and extra work, amounting in all to 
$1,717 net, not including per diem for attending Board of Eeview or 
$400 as Clerk of County Council. 

The Treasurer’s salary of $1,800, paid out of the county fund, was 
increased on an average by fees of $800 on delinquent taxes, out of 
which he had net, after paying $600 the year to deputies, $2,000, not 
including per diem for attending Board of Eeview and perquisites 
of office. 


UNION COUNTY. 

The aggregate payment to county officers Avas $505 less than the 
salary list, the payment out of the treasury being 64.8 per cent. 

The payments Avere as follows: 













273 


Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $1,000 $670 $103 $773 

Sheriff'. 1,000 440 306 746 

Kecorder. 700 366 70 436 

Auditor. 1,100 41 1,119 1,160 

Treasurer. 900 60 1,020 1,080 


Total. $4,700 $1,577 $2,618 $4,195 


The Clerk had a deficiency in taxation of $133 yearly and deficiency 
in collection of $226, the percentage of collection-being 79.3 percent., 
including per diem, and taxation 86.6 per cent. The Auditor, how¬ 
ever, reported collections by the Clerk and payment of salary tliereon 
of 88 per cent. His average net return out of fees and i>er diem was 
about $700, after paying $100 to deputies. 

The Sheriff collected, including per diem, 65.1 per cent, of his 
salary, while his taxation was 67.2 per cent., the yearly deficiency of 
collection being $385 and taxation $327; but the Auditor showed that 
the Sheriff was paid $266 more than the fees collected, or at rate of 
75.3 per cent, of his salary. He paid nothing to deputies, and his 
revenue from jail was about $200. , 

The Kecorder collected 66.3 per cent, of his salary and taxed 69.5 
per cent., the 3^ea,rly deficit amounting to $234. His net salary was 
from $450 to $475 the year, in addition to which he received $70 
for recopying records. 

The Auditor was paid 96.4 per cent, of his salary out of the 
county fund, his fees averaging $41. He paid nothing to deputies, 
thus having his salary in full, not including per diem for attending 
Board of Eeview or compensation as Clerk of County Council. 

The Treasurer was paid $900 of his salary from the county fund, 
and in addition had $60 from delinquent tax fees, plus attendance on 
Board of Review and perquisites of office. 

VANDERBURGH COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $15,821, the 
payment out of the treasury being about 55 per cent, of the whole. 
The payments were as follows: 


Salary Alloived. 


Clerk. $6,300 

Sheriff. 6,000 

Recorder. 3,400 

Auditor. 6,500 

Treasurer. 4,800 


Total. $27,000 


Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

$6,300 

$1,000 

$7,3C0 

6,000 

10,565 

16,565 

3,045 

305 

3,350 

750 

6,929 

7,679 

3,067 

4,860 

7,927 

$19,162 

$23,659 

$42,821 


18—F. AND S. Com. 






















274 


The Clerk, Charles Sihler, failed to report to the Commission, hut 
from the Auditor’s returns it was learned that the Clerk’s collections 
were about 100 per cent, of his salary, to which can be added $1,000 
representing per diem and court allowances. With his full salary thus 
earned and with the addition of per diem and court allowances, he 
had net $4,800, after paying $2,500 to deputies. 

The Sheriff collected 100 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
140.9 per cent., and retained his per diem and court allowances 
amounting to $1,000. After paying $2,400 to deputies, he had $4,600 
out of fees and per diem, in addition to which he received, for care 
of prisoners and the Avorkhouse, $9,558, wdiich gave him, not including 
expense for prisoners, a total of $14,150. 

The Eecorder collected 89.5 per cent, of his salary, but the Auditor 
showed that he turned into the treasur}^ 92.1 per cent., the average 
deficit being $355, according to the Eecorder’s figures, and $208, 
according to the Auditor’s. Paying $1,000 to deputies he had a net 
salary of $2,045, to wdiich was added $335 the year for recopying plat 
record, giving him a total net of $2,350 per year. 

Of the Auditor’s salaiy 88.4 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the remainder being covered by $750 in fees per year. The 
Auditor reported that he had been paid $1,055 extra for the two years 
covered by this report, or an average of $527 the year for extra work. 
This included $60 as member of the Board of Eeview and to it can be 
added $600 as compensation for services as Clerk of the County Coun¬ 
cil, and $65 as Clerk of the Turnpike Board. The extra work covered 
Assessor’s books and road index. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $4,800, paid out of the county fund, 
$3,067 in delinquent tax fees was added, giving him a total net com¬ 
pensation o4 $3,867, after paying $4,000 to deputies. This does not 
include per diem for attending Board of Eevieiv nor the perquisites 
of office. 


VERMILLION COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $1,810, the pay¬ 
ment out of the treasury being 39 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments wnre as follow^s: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$1,600 

$1,600 

$150 

$1,750 

Sheriff. 

1,600 

1,600 

400 

2,000 

Eecorder. 

1,000 

1,000 

260 

1,260 

Auditor. 

1,700 

225 

1,475 

1,700 

Treasurer.. 

1,400 

1,000 

1,400 

2,400 

Total .... 

$7,300 

$5,425 

$3,685 

$9,110 









2Y5 


The Clerk collected 114 per cent, on a taxation of 141 per cent., the 
excess of collection being $224 and taxation $265 yearly. Paying $300 
to deputies he had a net salary of $1,300 from fees, which, with the 
retention of per diem, gave him $1,450 net. 

The Sheriff reported collection and taxation for only three months, 
but the Auditor showed that his collections, turned into the fee fund, 
were 100 per cent, of his salar}^, which, increased by per diem and 
incidentals, gave him fully $2,000. After paying $360 to deputies 
he had an average net return of his salaiy allowed by law. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 108.3 per cent., or an excess of 
$83 the year. Paying $480 to deputies he had net $520. In addition 
he was paid $520 for copying old records, his personal revenue from 
the office averaging $780. Further, he retained payments made to 
him for certifying copies, etc. His average yearly return from the 
office was, therefore, about $800. 

The Auditor was paid 87 per cent, of liis salary out of the county 
fund, his fees averaging $225. In addition he was paid $325 for 
making two bridge tax duplicates. His average net salary, less pay¬ 
ment for extra work, being $1,220, after paying $480 to deputies. He 
had further per diem for attending Hoard of Review and compensa¬ 
tion for services as Clerk of Coiint}^ Council. 

The Treasurer had, in addition to his $1,400 paid out of the county 
treasury, $1,000 from delinquent tax fees, which permitted him to 
realize from this source, after paying $600 to deputies, about $1,800 
net, not including per diem for attending Hoard of RevieAV and perqui¬ 
sites of office. 


VIGO COUNTY. 


The average excess of payment over the salary list was $18,013, the 
payment out of the treasury being 60 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments Avere distributed as folloAvs: 


Salary All toed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $5,600 $5,600 $2,390 $7,990 

Sheriff. 5,300 3,650 10,451 14,101 

Recorder. 2,700 2,700 473 3,173 

Auditor. 5,800 900 7,509 8,409 

Treasurer. 4,300 3,680 4,360 8,040 

Total. $23,700 $16,530 $25,183 $41,713 


The Clerk collected 94 per cent, and was paid the same on a taxa¬ 
tion of 221 per cent. The Auditor’s figures concerning fees turned in 
by the Clerk practically agree Avith this. It is evident that he makes 








276 


his full saJary of $5,600 per year in the course of collections. Paying- 
$3,480 to deputies he has $2,120 net out of fees collected. He retained 
his per diem with other allowances, amounting to $2,390 on the aver¬ 
age, which gave him $4,510 total net compensation. In a letter to the 
Commission, David L. Watson^ the Clerk reporting, wrote: 

^^My statement shows that I am earning and_ taxing more than 
twice the amount of my salary, or, in exact figures, I have earned and 
taxed from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, the sum of $24,785.77, 
while my salary for the same period amounted to but $11,200. 

^^The amount collected out of the total amount charged may seem 
small, but the fact is that the majority of cases filed under my admin¬ 
istration are still pending, and quite a number are in the Appellate 
or Supreme courts and on change of venues. To get a fair estimate 
of the collections of this office, the amount of $4,007.21 collected for 
Mr. Eoquet should be added to the amount of my collections, as they 
will increase fully that amount as the cases are disposed of, and as a 
proof of this I will state that the collections for the first quarter were 
$1,035.15 and for this last quarter they were $1,902.60, an increase 
of about $290 per month. 

“While my salary list now amounts to $3,500, the business of the 
office is constantly on the increase, and for the present month my 
salary list will be $3,900. 

“I have tried to follow the law to the letter in regard to taxing fees, 
and am taxing no constructive fees whatever, and am charging just 
-what the law prescribes for each act to be worth; consequently, when 
I perform said act I should be entitled to the amount earned and taxed 
when same is collected; for instance, the law prescribes a fee of $0.50 
for making or issuing a marriage certificate, and when I perform said 
act, I am undoubtedly entitied tO' that amount, but instead, I get 
about one-half of it, or hardly that, for in the two years, from March 
1, ^97, to March 1, '99,1 have earned arid taxed the sum of $24,785.77 
and received but $11,200 of that amount, or, in other words, not quite 
one-half of what I have earned. If I do not perform the work I could 
not make this showing, and if I do perform said work, I am entitled 
to the amount prescribed by law for so doing. 

“The law makes the salary in tliis county for the Clerk $5,600 per 
annum. I was elected in 1894 and re-elected in 1898, and my term 
will expire in 1904, makiiig a period of ten years. Now it is unreason¬ 
able to suppose til at any private or public business is going to be at a 
standstill for ten years, yet should the business double in the next 
four years, I must still employ more help and carry it on for the 
same amount I started with. I have at the present time as good a force 


m 


of deputies as there is in the State, and yet I am employing one 
more man than was ever employed in the office before, simply because 
the business has increased so as to make it necessary. You may say 
the office is not on a fixed salary, that it is graded according to the 
population, and as the population increases, so also will the salary; 
that does not hold good for the reason that it is not necessary for the 
population of the county to increase to make the business of this office 
increase, for either extremely good or extremely bad times will increase 
the volume of business done. Suppose Ave should have a panic and a 
^reat many of our factories should close and the employes be forced 
to leave the city, that w^ould decrease the population and also the 
salary of the office, and increase the business, for with this state of 
affairs (Avhich is very possible) there would be a great many foreclos¬ 
ures, etc.'’^ 

The Clerk collected $4,721 for his predecessor, and on December 1, 
’99, had no surplus in his fund. 

The Sheriff reported collections and payments of salary thereon at 
68.8 per cent., or with $1,650 deficit in salary on a taxation of 98.5 
per cent., or a deficiency of $80. Paying $5,820 to deputies, he 
_ not only used his collections therefor, but $2,216 more, leaving him a 
loss of $320, if his ufll salary had been collected, or a loss of $2,170 on 
the rate of his collections as represented to the Commission. But as 
shoAvn by the report of the Auditor to this Commission, the Sheriff 
has been paid an average of $10,451 out of the county fund. 

Giving the total revenues from this office Ave have as follows: 


From fees. $3,650 

Board of prisoners. 6,140 

Turnkeys’fees. 1,120 

Insanity. 1,357 

Per diem. Commissioners’ Court. 641 

Per diem, Superior Court. 408 

Per diem. Circuit Court. 353 

Miscellaneous fees. 500 

House rent. 600 


Total.$14,769 


The Sheriff has from $6,000 to $8,000 net out of the fees and re¬ 
sources named, less deputy hire and expense for boarding prisoners. 

The Eecorder collected 136.7 per cent., or $991 excess, the report of 
the Auditor thereon practically agreeing Avith these figures. Out of 
his yearly salary of $2,700 he has had net $1,650, after paying $1,050 
to deputies. He was allowed $185 on an average yearly for extra 
work according to his OAvn statement, or $473 according to that of the 
Auditor, giving him net from $1,833 to $2,123. 













278 


To the Auditor’s salary about $900 in fees was applied, leaving 84.5 
per cent, to be paid from the county treasury. Paying $3,300 to depu¬ 
ties, he had $2,500 net, to which was added an average of $1,048 for 
extra work and an average of $60 yearly for Board of Eeview, giving 
him a total of $3,608, to which can be added now $600 as compensa¬ 
tion for services a.s Clerk of County Council. The Auditor reported 
that he was paid during the two years of this report: 


For indexing claims. $980 

For gravel road services. 987 

For election services. 249 

Total.$2,196 


To the Treasurer’s salary of $4,300 there was added in fees $3,680, 
giving him net $5,980, after paying $2,000 to deputies, with per diem 
as member of the Board of Eeview and perquisites of office to be ac¬ 
counted for in addition. 

The Eecorder was paid $1,169 for restoring old records. 


WABASH COUNTY. 


There was an average excess of payment over the salary list of 
$1,668, the payment out of the treasury being about 46 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,800 

$2,396 

*$404 

$2,800 

Sheriff. 

2,600 

2,048 

1,420 

3,468 

Recorder . 

1,900 

1,900 


1,900 

Auditor. 

2,800 

400 

2,400 

2,800 

Treasurer. 

2,200 

800 

2,200 

3,000 

Total.... 

$12,300 

$7,544 

$6,424 

$13,968 


The Clerk collected 133 per cent., including per diem, on a taxation 
of 156.5 per cent., the excess of collection being $996 and of taxation 
$1,500. The Auditor showed a return of 156.5 per cent, of the 
Clerk’s fees into the fee fund. Paying $1,200 to deputies the Clerk 
has had a net of $1,600. He collected $1,071.48 for his predecessor 
and had in his fee fund, December 1, 1899, a surplus of $2,773.98. 

D. B. McKahan, Sherilf, when this Commission was created, was 
asked to report, but failed to do so, but his successor, Chas. E. Stuart, 
when requested to supply the information, wrote that it would be im¬ 
possible comply, as the books covering the time of his predecessor had 
been removed from the office. The Auditor, however, showed that the 
fees turned in by the Sherilf, during the two years covered by this 
















279 


investigation, were on an average 91 per cent, of his salary with $234 
deficit. It is believed that this deficit is yearly covered hy subsequent 
collections, that the office is self-sustaining and that the Sheriff re¬ 
ceives his full salary from fees. Paying from $800 to $1,000 to depu¬ 
ties he has from $1,600 to $1,800 net, including per diem; and to these 
figures can be added an average of $900 the year from care of prisoners 
and turnkeys’ fees, giving him a total net return, less expense of jail, 
of from $2,500 to $2,700. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 136.2 per cent, of his salary, or 
an excess of $689. Paying $988 to deputies he had $912 net, with a 
small amount for extra work. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 87 per cent, was paid out of the county fund, 
the fees amounting to between $350 and $400 the year. Paying $1,500 
to deputies he had net $1,300 the year. To this can be added per 
diem for attending Board of Review and compensation as Clerk of 
County Council, the amounts not given. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $2,200 was added an average of from 
$800 to $1,000 in delinquent tax fees, giving him'net, at least, $1,500, 
after paying $1,450 to deputies, plus per diem for attending Board of 
Review and perquisites of office. 

WARREN COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list averaged $662 the year, 
the payment out of the treasury being 46.2 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

il,500 

$1,262 

$200 

$1,462 

Sheriff. 

1,300 

1,200 

500 

1,700 

Recorder. 

1,200 

1,200 


1,200 

Auditor. 

1,600 

100 

1,500 

1,600 

Treasurer. 

1,300 

300 

1,300 

1,600 

Total.... 

$6,900 

$4,062 

$3,500 

$7,562 


The Clerk collected 84.1 per cent, on a taxation of 120 per cent, of 
his salary, the deficit of collection being $250 the year, and excess of 
taxation $295. In addition he retained his per diem and allowances, 
which gave him little more than his salary allowed by law. He 
realized from his fees between $900 to $1,000 per year net. He col¬ 
lected $3,000 for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff has reported to the Commission that his collections 
during the two years covered by this investigation averaged 80 per 













280 


cent, on a taxation of 115.3 per cent. There is but slight variation 
between this exhibit of resources and collections thereon and that 
made to the Auditor by the Sheriff in reports of collections and salary 
paid. Tlie income of fees is about $1^200, and in addition there is 
$200 per diem and $500 from care of prisoners. The Sheriff about 
makes net his salary allowed after paying $500 to deputies. 

The Recorder taxed 114.3 per cent, of his salary and was only 5.3 
per cent, short of his taxation in his collections. The excess of taxa¬ 
tion was $171, and of collection $188. Paying $375 to deputies he had 
$835 net. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 93.7 per cent, was paid from the county 
fund, the remainder being covered by about $100 in fees each year. 
Paying $600 to deputies he had an average net salary of $1,000, to 
wdiich was added an allowance of $120 for extra work, making $1,120, 
plus attendance on Board of Review and compensation as Clerk of 
County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,300, paid out of the county fund, 
was added an average of $300 in delinquent fees, out of which, after 
paying $450 to deputies, he had net $1,150, plus revenue from use of 
funds and per diem for attending Board of Review. 

WARRICK COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salar}^ list was $993 the year, the 
payment out of the treasury being 47.3 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,200 

$1,943 

$350 

$2,293 

Sheriff. 

2,100 

1,300 

600 

1,900 

Recorder-. 

1,400 

1,400 


1,400 

Auditor. 

2,400 

150 

2,350 

2,500 

Treasurer. 

1,900 

1,000 

1,900 

2,900 

Total.... 

$10,000 

$5,793 

$5,200 

$10,993 


There is slight difference between the report of the Clerk of 
Warrick County and that of the Auditor, but both show that the 
collection, 88.3 per cent., has been close to the taxation, which was 90 
per cent. The deficit of collection being $257 and that of taxation 
$200. The Clerk’s per diem and court allowances gave him enough 
to cover the deficit, permitting him to realize a net of $1,840 after 
paying $360 to deputies. At the time of reporting to the Commission 
the Clerk had been in office seven years, thus covering a period under 
the law of ’91 and the law of ’95. 













281 


The Sheriff taxed 95.2 per cent, and collected 59.3 per cent, of his 
salary, the deficiency being $100 in taxation and $854 in collection. 
He turned into the fee fund, according to the Auditor, an average of 
55.2 per cent., and was paid a like amount. His collections gave him 
nn average of $1,300, or a net of $700, after paying $600 to deputies. 
With his per diem and other incidentals, amounting to $600, he re¬ 
ceived a net of about $1,300. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 118.2 per cent, of his salary, with 
.an excess of $255, but turned into the fee fund, according to the 
Auditor, 104 per cent., or an excess of $65. Paying $500 to deputies 
he had net $900 the year. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 91.9 per cent, on an average was paid out 
of the county treasury, the fees applied thereto being about $150 the 
year. Paying $1,000 to deputies he had net $1,400, and $100 per 
year for making assessors’ books, plus compensation as Clerk of County 
•Council and per diem for attending Board of Review. 

With an average of $1,000 in delinquent fees and a salary -of $1,900, 
the Treasurer had $2,900, or a net of $2,340, after paying $560 to 
•deputies. To this can be added per diem, for attending Board of Re¬ 
view and revenue from use of funds. 

WASHINGTON COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list was $1,000 on the 
average, the payment out of the treasury being 46.3 per cent. 

The payments were distributed as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,200 $2,200 $400 $2,600 

^Sheriff. 2,000 1,500 800 2,300 

Kecorder . 1,400 1,100 . ],100 

Auditor. 2,200 260 1,940 2,200 

Treasurer. 1,700 600 1,700 2,300 


Total. $9,500 $5,660 $4,840 $10,500 


The Clerks in the course of his term, realizes his full salary, but in 
his report to the Commission as to the taxation of fees he said it was 
only 69 per cent, of his salary for the two years covered by this report, 
•er a deficit of $683, but he showed that he collected and was paid 101 
per cent, or an excess of $56. The Auditor reported that theHlerk 
had turned in 106.1 per cent, of his collections and was paid a like 
amount thereon on salary. The difference between the Auditor’s re¬ 
port and the Clerk’s is explained by the fact that the former covered 
'One quarter more in his report to the Commission than the Clerk. The 












282 


Clerk retained his per diem and fees for recording and certifying in¬ 
dictments, affidavits and information, which gave him about $400 ad¬ 
ditional,’making his total compensation from $2,500 to $2,700. Out 
of that he paid $1,260 to deputies, giving him from $1,240 tO' $1,440 
per year. The Clerk collected for his predecessor $519. 

The Sheriff collected 74.9 per cent, on a taxation of 89 per cent, of 
his salary, but the Auditor reported that the Sheriff turned into the 
treasury 78.1 per cent, of his collections and was paid a like amount. 
The deficiency of taxation was $219 from the Sheriff's report and 
collection $500, but from the Auditors showing the deficiency of 
collection was $437. The Sheriff's average return out of fees collected 
has been about $1,500, out of which paying $500 to deputies he had 
$1,000 net. Adding $300 for court allowances and a like amount for 
care of prisoners, with other incidentals, he had a net revenue of 
$1,800 to $2,000. 

The Eecorder taxed 79.2 per cent., or a deficit of $290, and collected 
and was paid thereon 75.8 per cent., or a deficit of $337. He had a 
net return out of fees collected, after paying $200 to deputies, of about 
$862 yearly, and in addition he had a small amount for making 
deeds and mortgages. 

Of the Auditors salary 88.2 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the remainder being covered by $260 to $300 in fees. Paying 
$360 to deputies he had net $1,840, plus per diem for attending Board 
of Review and compensation as Clerk of County Council. 

The Treasurer, Thos. B. Cauble, failed to report, but the fees of 
his office about covered his deputy hire, leaving him his salary of 
$1,700, plus per diem for attending Board of Review, perquisites of 
office and other incidentals. 


WAYNE COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list was $4,033, the payment 
out of the treasury being 33.8 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed. 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

13,700 

$3,300 

$400 

$3,700 

Sheriff'. 

3,200 

2,500 

3,863 

6,363 

Recorder . 

2,000 

2,000 


2,000 

Auditor. 

3,900 

550 

3,410 

3,960 

Treasurer . 

2,900 

750 

2,960 

3,710 

Total.... 

$15,700 

$9,100 

$10,633 

$19,733^ 













283 


The Clerk collected, including per diem, 120 per cent., or an aver¬ 
age excess of $710 on a taxation of 130 per cent., with $1,622 average 
excess, hut the Auditor showed collections at 128.8 per cent, of the 
salary. Paying $1,700 to deputies he had net $2,000. He collected 
$3,014 for his predecessor and, December 1, 1899, had a surplus in his 
fund of $522.50. 

The Sheriff collected 109.4 per cent, of his salary, including per 
diem, on a taxation of 128.3*per cent. However, the Auditor showed 
collections of 111.5 per cent, turned into the fee fund. 

Approximating the total revenue from this office we have: 


From fees. $3,500 

Per diem. 450 

Care of prisoners. 2,991 

Turnkeys’ fees. 547 

Miscellaneous. 200 


Total..... $7,688 


From these returns it is the opinion of the Commission that the 
Sheriff makes net out of his office from $3,800 to $4,300. 

The Recorder taxed and collected 130.3 per cent., or more than 
$600 in excess of his salary. He paid $500 to deputies, leaving him 
$1,500 net. 

To the Auditors salary an average of $550 per year in fees was ap¬ 
plied leaving 86 per cent, to he paid out of the county fund, together 
with $60 per year for Board of Review, and to which can be added now 
$400 as compensation as Clerk of County Council. The Auditor had 
a surplus of $495 in his fee fund December 1, 1899, and the Recorder 
a surplus of $735. 

To the $2,900 of the Treasurer, paid out of the county fund, $750 
in fees was added, with $60 for Board of Review. Paying $1,500 to 
deputies, he had $2,210 total net, plus perquisites of office. 

WELLS COUNTY. 

There was an average excess of payment of $2,875 over the salary 
list, the payment out of the treasury being 49 per cent. 

The payments were as follows: 

Salary Allowed. Fees. County Fund. Total. 


Clerk. $2,200 $2,200 . $980 $3,180 

Sheriff. 2,100 1,577 1,200 2,777 

Recorder. 1,500 1,500 13 1,513 

Auditor. 2,400 400 2,145 2,545 

Treasurer. 1,900 1,000 1,960 2,960 


Total. $10,100 $6,677 $6,298 $12,975 



















284 


The Clerk collected 185.8 per cent, on a taxation of 388 per cent., 
hut his collections, according to the Auditor who reported the fees 
turned into the treasury, were 167.5 per cent. He was paid thereon 
only 93 per cent, the excess of taxation being $6,738 and collections 
$1,858. Paying $600 to deputies he had net $1,600 out of fees. Re¬ 
taining his per diem and court allowances he had $980 more, giving 
him a total net of $2,580 on the average. He collected $1,676 for his 
predecessor and had a surplus in his fund December 1, 1899, of 
$5,474.97. 

The Sheriff in his report to the Commission covered only eighteen 
months, but the Auditor showed that he turned in, during the two 
years covered by this investigation, and was paid, 73.2 per cent, of Ms 
salary. Paying $750 to deputies he had at the per cent, of 73.2 $827 
net out of his fees. But he received in addition from per diem and 
care of prisoners about $1,200, giving him a net salary from $2,000 to 
$2,400 the year. 

The Recorder collected 117.1 per cent, of his salary, or an excess 
of $271, while the Auditor reported a collection by this Recorder of 
only 104.4 per cent., or an excess of $67. His net salary has been 
$950 after paying $550 to deputies. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 83.8 per cent, was paid out of the county 
fund, the remainder being covered by about $400 in fees. After 
paying $900 to deputies he had $1,500 net, plus per diem for attend¬ 
ing Board of Review and $100 the year as Clerk of Turn Pike Board, 
and hereafter $400 the year as compensation for services as Clerk of 
County Council. The Auditor had in his fund December 1, 1899, 
$1,487.15, while the Recorder carried in his fund a surplus of 
$367.35. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,900, paid out of the county fund, 
about $1,000 in delinquent tax fees was added, giving him net $2,100 
after paying $800 to deputies, plus attendance on Board of Review and 
perquisites of office. 

WHITE COUNTY. 

The excess of payment over the salary list was $2,100, the payment 
out of the treasury being 49 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Alloived. 

Fees. 

Cownty Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$1,900 

$1,900 

$300 

$2,200 

Sheriff. 

1,800 

1,800 

800 

2,600 

Recorder.. 

1,300 

1,300 


1,300 

Auditor. 

2,100 

600 

1,600 

2,100 

Treasurer. 

1,600 

1,000 

1,600 

2,600 

Total .... 

$8,700 

$6,500 

$4,300 

$10,800 













285 


The Clerk taxed 133.3 per cent, and collected 120 per cent, of hi& 
salary, the excess of taxation being $743 the year and collection $386. 
Paying $1,150 to deputies he had $750 net out of fees, but his per 
diem and court allowances, amounting to $300, gave him a total net 
of about $1,050. 

The Sheriff collected 95.8 per cent, on a taxation of 166 per cent, 
of his salary, the excess of taxation averaging $1,200 per year and 
deficit in collection about $75. The Auditor showed that the col¬ 
lections were 93.7 per cent., and the opinion of the Commission is 
that the Sheriff receives his full salary in the course of his term. 
Paying $360 to deputies he has net $1,440, and in addition $800 from 
per diem and court allowances and care of prisoners, giving him a 
total net of $2,200. 

The Eecorder taxed and collected 188 per cent., or $1,140 in excess 
of salary allowed by law. The reports of the Eecorder to the State 
Statistician showed receipts of 263 per cent., excess of $2,120. Paying 
$875 to deputies he had net only $425. 

Of the Auditor’s salary 77 per cent, was paid out of the county 
treasury, the average collection of fees being about $500. Paying 
$900 to deputies he had net $1,200, plus compensation for attending 
Board of Eeview and as Clerk of County Council. 

To the Treasurer’s salary of $1,900, paid out of the county fund, 
$1,000 in delinquent tax fees was added, giving him $2,900, out of 
which, paying $720 to deputies, he had $2,180 net. 


WHITI.EY COUNTY. 


The excess of payment over the salary list was $1,070, the payment 
out of the treasury being 45.5 per cent, of the whole. 

The payments were as follows: 



Salary Allowed.' 

Fees. 

County Fund. 

Total. 

Clerk. 

$2,000 

$1,800 

$200 

$2,000 

Sheriff. 

1,900 

1,700 

750 

2,450 

Eecorder . 

1,300 

1,300 


1,300 

Auditor. 

.... 2,100 

250 

1,910 

2,160 

Treasurer. 

1,700 

400 

1,760 

2,160 

Total.... 

$9,000 

$5,450 

$4,620 

$10,070 


The Clerk reported for three and one-half years, the average col¬ 
lections thereon being 97 per cent, on a taxation of 131 per cent. The- 
Auditor reported for the two years covered by this report that the 
Clerk turned in fees and was paid 92.6 per cent, of his salary. During 













286 


the four years of office the Clerk has had an average excess of $1,000 
in taxation and collected fully up to his salary of $2,000 per year. 
Tie retained his per diem at the outset, but the County Commissioners 
demanded that it he turned into the treasury. The only additional 
compensation he has is that for making transcripts, not including 
the fee for the certificate and seal. He made net, under these condi¬ 
tions, about $1,500 per year. He reported that he had collected $2,500 
for his predecessor. 

The Sheriff collected 71.2 per cent, of his salary on a taxation of 
110 per cent. However, from the Auditor's returns to the Commis¬ 
sion it is learned that the Sheriff paid into his fund on an average 
88 per cent, of his salary and drew out only 67.4 per cent., a deficit of 
$613 under the salary allowed by law, while he collected within $225 
of the full amount of his salary. It is the opinion of the Commission 
that during his term of office the Sheriff collected enough to give him 
an average of $1,700, which, less deputy hire of $800, gave him net 
$900. He received, on an average, $500 for care of prisoners and 
turnkeys’ fees and $250 per diem, giving him a total net from $1,400 
to $1,700. The Sheriff, December 1, 1899, had a surplus in his fee 
fund of $242.06. 

The Recorder collected and taxed 160 per cent., and paying $100 
to deputies had $900 net. He carried a surplus, December 1, 1899, 
of $267.82 in his fee fund. 

Of the Auditor’s salary about $250 was made up out of fees, the 
remainder, 88.5 per cent., being paid out of the treasury. Paying 
$1,050 to deputies he had net $1,050, plus per diem for attending 
Board of Review and hereafter $400 as compensation as Clerk of 
County Council. 

To the $1,700 paid to the Treasurer out of the county fund was 
added $400 in delinquent tax fees, giving him a total of $2,100, or a 
net, after paying $750 to deputies, of $1,350. To this can be added 
attendance on Board of Review and perquisites of office. 


VII. 


MINOR COUNTY OFFICERS. 


This Commission, in pursuance of its inquiry, called upon the 
County Auditors to' report the amount paid, during the two years, 
from March 1, 1897, to March 1, 1899, to Coroners, County Superin¬ 
tendents and Surveyors. The replies were not sufficiently complete 
to make tabular statement of the amounts so returned of particular 
value. Enough information, however, was received to warrant the 
opinion that the County Superintendents were paid a per diem charge, 
without exception, for services eveiy week day of the year, thus giving 
them, practically, a compensation of $1,200 per annum on the 
average. This has caused a great deal of complaint, and is one of the 
instances dwelt upon by those advocating an abolition of the per diem 
system. 

Much complaint has been also received concerning the compensa¬ 
tion of County Surveyors, but being without figures to enable the 
Commission to judge what the average yearly has been we can do no 
more than call attention to these complaints. 

COUNTY COUNCILMEN. 

Another feature of the CommissioiTs inquiry was the solicitation of 
opinion from the County Councilmen of the State as to what would be 
a sufficient yearly compensation for the officers of their respective 
counties, and also the yearly compensation of each deputy, irrespective 
of his principals salary. The replies received were numerous, nearly 
one-half of the 644 Councilmen responding. The opinions, though, 
were very diverse, but the average compensation favored for the 
officers and deputies, compared with the average compensation of 
officers and deputies under the present law, was as shown in the fol¬ 
lowing tables: 


— 287 — 



288 


Average. Average Total Ave- Present Ave- Present 
Salary for Salary for rage Officers rags Officers^AverageNef 


County. 

Adams. 

Officers Favored. 

Deputies. 

and Dep. 

and Dep. 

Salary. 

Allen. 

. $4,380 

$750 

$5,130 

$5,060 

$2,382 

Bartholomew .. . 

. 1,340 

511 

1,851 

2,140 

1,381 

Benton. 

. 1,673 

525 

2,198 

1,400 

819 

Blackford. 

. 1,493 

452 

1,945 

1,520 

1,158 

Boone. 

. 1,117 

582 

1,699 

2,320 


Brown. -. . 




Carroll. . . . . . 

Cass. 

. 2,473 

593 

3,063 

2,820 


Clark . 





Clay. 

. 1,936 

498 

2,434 

2,480 

1,327 

Clinton. 


478 

2,622 

2,440 

1,260 

Crawford. 

. 950 

380 

1,330 

1,480 

1,040 

Daviess. 






Dearborn. 

. 1,704 

641 

2,345 

2,110 

1,460 

Decatur. 


528 

1,864 

2,000 

1,595 

Dekalb. 

. 1,666 

543 

2,209 

2,160 

1,510 

Delaware. 

. 2,800 

521 

3,321 

3,225 


Dubois. 

. 1,796 

452 

2,248 

1,860 

1,340 

Elkhart. 

. 3,026 

552 

3,578 

3,240 

1,804 

Fayette. 

. 1,230 

600 

1,800 

1,540 

i,2ia 

Floyd. 












Fountain. 

. 1,573 

650 

2,223 

2,000 

1,185 

Franklin. 

. 1,342 

350 

1,690 

1,540 

1,375 

Fulton. 

. 1,095 

418 

1,513 

1,720 


Gibson. 

. 1,700 

510 

2,210 

2,200 

1,407 

Grant. 

. 2,113 

635 

2,748 

3,720 

2,455 

Greene. 

. 2,060 

623 

2,683 

2,340 

1,564 

Hamilton. 

. 2,122 

501 

2,623 

2,460 

1,393 

Hancock. 

1,106 

623 

1,729 

1,900 

1,292 

Harrison. 

. 1,620 

600 

2,220 

1,880 

1,260 

Hendricks. 

. 1,246 

621 

1,887 

2,020 

1,450 

Henry. 












Howard. 

. 2,073 

855 

2,928 

2,480 

1,533 

Huntington. 

. 1,913 

553 

2,466 

2,410 

1,714 


Jackson 


U •••••••••••• 

Jay. 

Jefferson. 

1,850 

590 

2,440 

2,380 

1,867 

Jennings. 

1,480 

516 

1,996 

1,550 

1,168 

Johnson. 

1,471 

587 

2,058 

2,016 

1,960 

Knox. 

.... 2,000 

730 

2,730 

2,347 

2,380 

2,380 

Kosciusko. 

1,663 

684 

1,480 

Lagrange. 

1,560 

345 

1,905 

1,600 

1,229 




































































































289 



Average. 
Salary for 

County. 

Officers Favored. 

Lake.... 

. 2,300 

Laporte. 

. 2,635 

Lawrence. 

. 1,840 

Madison.. 

. 2,686 

Marion. 

. 3,030 

Marshall. 


Martin. 

. 1,408 

Miami. 


Monroe... 

. 1,635 

Montgomery . ... 

. 2,613 

Morgan. 


Newton. 

. 1,184 

Noble. 

. 1,940 

Ohio. 


Orange. 

. 1,392 


Owen 


Parke 


Perry . 

1,800 

Pike . 

1,506 

Porter . 

1,746 

Posey . 

1,400 

Pulaski. 

1,363 

Putnam. 

r • • • « • 

Randolph. 

1,508 

Ripley. 

1,333 

Rush. 

1,720 

Scott. 

1,065 

Shelby. 

2,195 

Spencer. 

1,916 

Starke . 


Steuben . 

1,570 

St Joseph . 

. 

Sullivan . 

1,593 

Switzerland . 

1,050 

Tippecanoe . 

2,371 

Tipton . 

1,375 

Tin inn .. 


VanHprtinrcrb . . 

Vermillion . 

1,290. 

Vigo . 

2,600 

Wabash . 

1,680 

Warren . 

1,446 

AVarrick . 

1,450 

Washington . 

1,512 

19—F. AND S. Com. 



Average 

Total A ve¬ 

Present Ave¬ 

Present 

Salary for 

rage Officers 

rage Officers . 

AverageNet 

Deputies. 

and Dep. 

and Dep. 

Salary. 

580 

2,880 

2,860 

1,572 

635 

3,270 

3,060 

_ .< 

540 

2,380 

2,000 


580 

3,266 

4,400 

2,213 

820 

3,850 

14,700 

4,600 

496 

1,937 

2,120 

1,542 

531 

1,939 

1,480 

1,361 ' 

646 

2,119 

2,120 

1,080 

534 

2,169 

1,960 

1,320 

616 

3,229 

2,460 

1,586 

460 

1,700 

1,860 

1,444 

450 

1,634 

1,180 

916 

500 

2,440 

2,120 

1,418 

200 

961 

960 

663 

529 

1,921 

1,560 

1,023 


495 

2,295 

1,780 


426 

1,932 

1,780 

1,325 

588 

2,334 

2,400 

1,456 

775 

3,175 

2,000 

1,666 

470 

1,833 

1,425 


431 

1,939 

2,340 

1,631 

600 

1,933 

1,940 

1,402 

575 

2,295 

2,000 

1,525 

200 

1,265 

920 

622 

460 

2,655 

2,120 

1,030 

462 

2,378 

2,000 


450 

2,020 

1,600 


503 

2,096 

2,000 


400 

1,450 

1,400 


605 

2,976 

3,140 


524 

1,899 

1,940 

1,294 


483 

1,773 

1,260 

1,208 

730 

3,330 

4,740 

2,054 

637 

2,317 

2,460 


505 

1,951 

1,450 

855 

414 

1,834 

2,000 

1,531 

384 

1,896 

1,900 

1,180 

























































































r- 


290 


Avermje Average Total Are- Present Ave- Present 
Salary for Salary for rage Officers rage Officers AverageNet 
County. Officers Favored. Deputies, and Dtp. and Dep. Salat y. 

Wayne. . . . . . 

Wells. 1,746 853 2,593 1,940 . 

White. 1,660 556 • 2,216 1,740 1,147 

Whitley. 1,566 548 2,114 1,740 1,147 


Tlio following question was also asked of the Count}^ Conncilmen: 
‘^^'\A1iat o])inion have you concerning fees and salaries of State, county 
and townshi}) officers?’^ It would only coiujjlicate this re})ort to give 
the responses in detail, hut the inajority of them favored a straight sal¬ 
ary system with the payment of all fees into the treasury. It wa.s the 
opinion of many that the j)resent salaries are too high, of others that 
they are fair, and a few that they should he increased. I’er diem for 
township' ollicers was urged hy some and o])posed by many more, 
but })ayment of deputies from tiie county treasury irrespective of the 
principahs salary was not favored except hy a few. 











VII. 


Summary of Salaries and Extra Compensation 
Paid County Officers. 


It will be observed in the preceding analysis of payments of all 
kinds to county officers, and the resources therefor, that inequali¬ 
ties of compensation are the result in great measure, of the defective 
system of fixing salaries specifically for each county officer in each 
county in the State. ‘These inequalities have been increased by allow¬ 
ances of per diem and extra compensation for special work, and by 
perquisites accruing to certain officers and not to others in the line 
of their services. 

It was the purpose of the fee and salary laws of 1891 and 1895 to 
give the higher compensatiou to Clerks and Auditors. Apparently 
this is done by the greater salaries jirovided for them in the laws 
named, but in practice through iierquisites of office the Sheriffs and 
Treasurers are better compensated, as a rule, than either Clerks or 
Auditors. This is shown conclusively by the net salary each class 
of officers obtains after paying deputies out of gross salaries, 
perquisites and payments out of the county fund. 

The following comparison of total salaries allowed yearly, payments 
out of fees and county fund, with total paid, the average of fees taxed 
and fees collected and number of deinities employed and total average 
net salary;, makes this fact clear, thus: 


Total Salary Paid Out oj Paid Out of 

Allowed. Fees. County Fund. 

Clerk. $240,900 $218,453 $48,175 

Sheriff. 221,200 175,042 163,688 

Recorder. 152,900 146,256 7,492 

Auditor . 252,000 41,965 232,606 

Treasurer. 193,900 78,127 195,243 

Total.$1,060,900 $659,843 $647,204 


-291- 









292 



Total 

Excess Over 

Deputies 


Compensation. 

Salary Allowed. 

Employed. 

Clerk. 

. $266,628 

$25,728 

182 

Sheriff. 

. 338,730 

117,530 

194 

Recorder. 

153,748 

848 

181 

Auditor . 

. 274,571 

22,571 

233 

Treasurer. 

. 273,370 

79,470 

279 

Total. 

.$1,307,047 

$246,147 

1,069 



Yearly Payment 

Net Yearly 

Average Fees 


to Deputies. 

Compensation. 

Taxed Yearly. 

Clerk... 

. $86,872 

$179,756 

$300,122 

Sheriff. 

. 76,075 

262,655 

260,031 

Recorder. 

. 52,956 

100,792 

183,426 

Auditor . 

. 119,228 

155,343 

41,965 

Treasurer. 

. 100,706 , 

172,664 

78,127 

Total. 

. $435,837 

$871,210 

$863,671 


Percentage 



Average Fees 

/- Auditor'*s Report -v 

Paid Out 


Collected Yearly. 

Fees Collected. 

Salary Paid. 

County Fund. 

Clerk. 

.... $268,986 

$260,045 

$225,063 

18.6 

Sheriff. 

181,380 

193,024 

186,148 

48.2 

Recorder. 

.... 182,548 

166,629 

134,966 

4.2 

Auditor. 

.... 41,965 



84.7 

Treasurer . . . 

_ 78,127 



71.4 

Total... 




49.5 


DEDUCTIONS FKOM THE TABLES. 

In regard to taxation and collection of fees and their relation to 
salaries and total compensation paid the Clerks and Sheriffs, it should 
he observed that many of these officers included therein their per diem; 
therefore under head of average fees taxed and collected, yearly per 
diem compensation is covered in many instances, hut in the analysis 
of payment the per diem and court allowances have been subtracted 
from the totals and carried under ^^payment out of county fund” 
along with other compensation claimed and allowed out of that fund. 
Thus it is shown that, if the aggregate salary of Clerks had been 
dependent upon fees alone, it would be short $22,447, hut $50,533 
more fees were collected than were paid the Clerks from'that source. 
This can he explained by the excess of fees collected over salary 
in some counties, by deficiency collected in others, and by the vary¬ 
ing practice of including per diem in collections in some counties and 
not in others. Again, had the deficiency of fees, $22,447, and salary 





























293 


allowed beeiii exactly paid out of the county fund on per diem and 
allowances there would have been a difference between salary allowed 
and total paid of $25^,728; but, as it is, the fees, $218,453, were short of 
the total compensation paid, $48,570. If the correct interpretation 
of the law of 1895 is, that the Clerks are to be paid in the aggregate no 
more than $240,900 and that that amount is to be paid wholly out of 
fees, exclusive of per diem and allowances, the Clerks have had, on an 
average each year, $48,175 more than they were entitled to. On the 
other hand, if they were entitled to sufficient per diem to make up the 
deficiency in salary, and no more, they have been paid an excess of 
$25,728. If it is assmned that each Clerk will be paid all yearly 
deficiencies of salary from collections, under his own taxation, the 
aggregate in time will reach $240,900 plus $48,175 already paid out 
of the county treasury, or a total of $289,075. In that event the 
Clerk’s net compensation would be $203,078 yearly. It now averages 
$179,756 yearly. 

Eelative to total collection of fees by the Clerks: A difference of $8,- 
941 occurs in their reports and those of the Auditors’ to this Commis¬ 
sion, the latter being that much less; nor is there agreement as to the 
amount of salary paid, the Auditors showing the Clerks to have re¬ 
ceived $225,063, and the Clerks reporting having received only 
$216,983. These amounts generally include per diem. The differ¬ 
ences can arise only from failure to report quarterly to the Auditor 
or from irregularities in such reports when made. This leads to the 
suggestion that the law requiring such reports has been in a greater or 
less degree violated. 

The total yearly payments to the Sheriffs are exceptionally large on 
account of the compensation they receive for boarding prisoners, but 
even if this was eliminated from payment out of the county fund, 
there would still remain considerable excess over the aggregate salary 
allowed, the excess covering pr diem for attendance on County Com¬ 
missioners’ Court, Circuit Court and miscellaneous allowances. The 
reason given for the discrepancy between fees paid and fees taxed and 
collected, in regard to the Clerk’s compensation, applies equally to 
the Sheriffs’ fees paid on salar}^ and fees collected; the former being 
free from per diem charges, the latter including it. It will be ob¬ 
served that the Sheriffs’ revenue from the county fund is within 
$11,354 of the amount of fees paid on account of salary. As to fees 
thus paid they were $46,158 short of salary allowance, according to 
the Sheriffs’ own reports, and $35,052 according to the Auditors’ 
showing; but the deficiency in fees, great as it is, is largely more than 
covered by payment out of the county fund. So great is the revenue 


294 


of Slieriffs from the several sources named that after paying deputies 
they have an aggregate net conipensation of $41,455 more than the 
total salary allowed. It is also greater than the net compensation of 
the Clerks by $82,899, of the Recorders by $161,853, of the Auditors 
by $107,312, and of the Treasurers by $89,991. 

The Sheriffs reported to the Commission $11,644 average less 
collection than they turned into the treasury, as shown by the reports 
from the Auditors. Here, too, a wide discrepancy occurs as to the 
amounts paid, as reported by the Sheriffs and Auditors. 

The margin between the aggregate salaries allowed the Recorders 
and aggregate paid them out of fees is comparatively small, the 
deficiency of the latter being $6,644. This is more than covered by 
payments out of the county fund for extra work in restoring old 
records, making indexes and the like. The amount of payment, from 
the two sources, fees and county fund, exceeds the aggregate salary 
allowed by $848. 

The Recorders, as a rule, collect closely, they being assisted by the 
law which requires cash for recording on the filing of an instrument. 
However, the Commission has found evidence of credit being given by 
some Recorders, but in the aggregate, the fees taxed and fees col¬ 
lected are nearly the same in amount, the Recorders after paying depu¬ 
ties, as a whole, netting about 65.6 per cent, of their total compensa¬ 
tion. It appears, though, in the reports of the Auditors to this Com¬ 
mission that the total collection of fees by Recorders was $20,373 
more, and in the Recorders’ own reports of collections, $36,292 more 
than they were paid. These sums must represent the surplus of those 
Recorders whose collections exceed their salaries. iVgain it is in evi¬ 
dence, relative to these officers, as well as to Clerks and Sheriffs, that 
Ihe accounting between them and the Auditors, as to salary paid and 
fees collected, is not strictly observed, for it seems from the figures of 
the Auditors that the Recorders were ]>aid $11,290 less than the pay¬ 
ments shown in the Recorders’ own reports, and that they collected 
$15,917 more than the Auditors show them to have collected. 

The Auditors and Treasurers have no deficit in salary, as their 
compensation is paid them without regard to collection of fees, but 
the large amounts the Auditors pay to deputies reduces their total 
compensation to about $155,343, a sum much less than the net com¬ 
pensation of Clerks. 

The Treasurers employ more deputies than any of the other officers, 
but pay them, in the aggregate less than the amount paid to the deputy 
Auditors, but this payment leaves the Treasurers a net compensation 
of $172,664. 


295 


'I'he cauj=es of extra payments to Auditors and Treasurers have been 
fully set forth in the ])receding digest and cover a work, on the part 
of the Auditors, in restoring records, making assessors’ hooks and 
other incidentals of extra service, and bn the part of the Treasurers 
of collecting insolvent taxes and claims here and there arising for the 
rendering of specific services. 


1 


I 




A 







\ 




4 



t 



•% 

« 

* 

■» 







j 





1 



4 




k « A 

hT^ 



4 *V 


Conclusions and Recommendations 


STATE FEE AND SALARY COMMISSION. 





I. 


Conclusions and Recommendations of the Fee 
AND Salary Commission. 


The conclusions of the State Fee and Salary Commission, drawn 
from various reports made to it and from information received from 
many sources, are presented in three bills which will be found in 
the appendix as herewith noted. 

A. A general fee and salary bill, relating to State officers and 
County Clerks, Sheriffs, Recorders, Auditors and Treasurers, marked 
^"^Appendix A.^^ 

I>. A bill relating to officers receiving per diem, such as County As¬ 
sessor, Township Assessor, County Superintendent, County Surveyor 
and other officers, marked ‘^'■'Appendix 

C. A bill relating to salaries and compensation of Justices of the 
Peace and Constables, marked ^^Appendix C.’^ 

E. A bill relating to expenses of Judges of Circuits containing two 
or more counties, marked ^^Appendix 

It will be seen that the bill relating to State officers contains 
some changes relative to their compensation. The first noticeable 
increase of salary is that of the Governor, which the Commission 
recommends be fixed at $8,000 per year. Heretofore, the salary of 
this officer has been placed under that of the Secretary of State, 
Auditor of State, Treasurer of State, Attorney-General, and at a 
figure equal tO' the salary allowed the Clerk of the Supreme Court. 
Much objection has been urged to this, it being claimed that as the 
Governor is the head of the State he should have the largest salary, 
and a salary not only commensurate with the high duties of his office, 
but with the dignity of his position. The anomaly of the Governor 
receiving less salary than any of the subordinate officers named can 
be overoome, the Commission is of the opinion, by placing it at the 
figure given. 

It is also deemed advisable to recommend other changes, but the 
Commission has had assurance that in most cases the amounts now 


- 299 - 



300 


paid are satisfactory and reasonable. Exceptions, however, are made 
of the Judges of the Supreme and Appellate Courts, Superintendent of 
Public Instruction, Keporter of the Supreme Court, and a few other 
cases. It is believed thaf the Judges of the Supreme Court are inad¬ 
equately paid, when their salaries are compared with the salaries paid 
like officers in other large and progressive States. 

It is not necessary to go at length into the reason why a Supreme 
Judge should receive more than $4,500 a year, but it is sufficient to 
state that one taking this position does so' at greater or less sacri¬ 
fice of personal interest. By the necessity of his position he is 
shut out from any compensation other than that of salary. It is 
required that his whole time shall be given to the duties of his high 
office, and that he shall be entirely free from outside influence, and 
that he must reside in the district from which he is elected. At the 
beginning of his term he must discard his practice, and this through 
the course of six years, the term of his office, is entirely lost to him. 
At the end of his term if he resumes his law practice he is almost in 
the position of a beginner in the building up of a business from the 
foundation. It is not believed that $4,500 a year, without considering 
its inadequacy in connection with the dignity of his position, is 
sufficient to cover the loss and cost which a person of distinguished 
and lucrative law practice sustains on becoming a Supreme Judge. It 
is, therefore, recommended that the salary of each Supreme Judge 
be placed at $6,000 a year. 

With much the same force this reason applies to the Appellate 
Judges, but it is modified somewhat by the temporary character of 
the Appellate Court, the existence of the court depending upon the 
will of the Legislature. It is, therefore, deemed proper to recommend 
an increase of salar^^ for the Appellate Judges, keeping in view the 
probability of the court being terminated when the Legislature has 
provided for an increase of the number of Supreme Judges. 

Another noticeable increase of State officers’ salaries the Com¬ 
mission believes should be recommended is that of the salary of the 
Secretary of the State Board of Health. It has been urged upon 
the Commission that the best results of this office are obtained, only 
through its occupancy by a person of large and accurate technical 
knowledge, and that a salary under $1,500 a year would not secure one 
. of sufficient professional standing and technical acquirement to attain 
that efficiency of service the people of the State expect of their Board 
of Health. It has been the custom in procuring the best service in the 
office of the Secretary of the State Board of Health to increase the 
statutory allowance of his salary by special appropriation. This has 


301 


been the practice for several years, the statutory allowance of $1,200 
being increased by $1,200 appropriation. It also should be borne in 
mind that under the $1,200 statutory allowance alone the Secretary 
may engage in other work, not connected with his duties as an officer 
of the State; a practice that is, no doubt, detrimental to the efficiency 
of the State service. In States where the Secretaries of the Board of 
Health are restricted to the duties of office alone and are not permitted 
to engage in other service, the salaries are from $1,300 to $3,300 
higher than the salary allowed for the same service in this State. 

The Commission would recommend, in order to secure the best 
professional knowledge and experience in the office of Secretary of the 
Board of Health that the salary be placed at $2,500, and that the Sec¬ 
retary receiving this salary be held strictly to his line of duty as such 
Secretary and prohibited from engaging in outside work. 


FEES OF STATE OFFICERS. 


The increases of salaries thus recommended will impose little, if any,, 
additional burden upon the taxpayer, as the fees collected by various 
State officers are almost sufficient to cover, not only the salaries as 
they are now, but all expenses connected with their several offices, 
including, the compensation of deputies. These fees come through 
the collections of the Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Clerk 
of the Supreme Court, along with the collections of the Attorney- 
General and other officers. In the course of a year they amount, in 
the aggregate, to a large sum, as evidenced by the following statement 
to the Commission by the Auditor of State. 

The statement covers the collection of fees and other moneys during 
the fiscal year ending October 31, 1899: 


Circuit Court docket fees.... $14,007 

Governor’s contingent fees. 5 

Auditor of State, insurance fees.. 224,3.^9 

Auditor of State, building and loan association and land 

office fees. 1,973 

Secretary of State, incorporation fees. 49,891 

Secretary of State, sales of court reports. 4,512 

Secretary of Slate, miscellaneous. 2,589 

Clerk of Supreme Court. 3,922 

Clerk of Supreme Court, transcripts. 165 

Clerk of Appellate Court, fees.. 3,768 

Attorney-General’s collections. 21,836 

Board of Medical Registration.. 1,944 

Board of Pharmacy. 9,000 




Total...$338,491 

This total will be largely increased by the collections of the Auditor 

















302 


of State, which have been about $25,000 greater during the fiscal year 
ending October 31, 1900, than his collections noted above, d he fees 
collected ])y the Secretary of State for the fiscal year ending Octo¬ 
ber 31, 1900, exceed tliose of the fiscal year of '99 l)y more tlian 
$20,000, or as a whole, the collections of these two officers alone will 
increase the receipts of fees by $50,000. Thus the State has avail¬ 
able in fees nearly $400,000 toward the ])ayment of salaries and office 
expenses. 

The Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Court re])orted to the 
Commission that he had taxed and collected fees, during the two years 
specified, as follows: 

Total amount of fees collected and taxed fi-om July 1, 


1898, to July 1, 1900.$25,352 78 

Total taxed and uncollected. 9,713.15 

Net collected.$15,039.63 


This shows an average yearly taxation of $12,776 and an average 
collection of $7,(S19, leaving uncollected $3,642 to await the comple¬ 
tion of litigation wheri i)ayments of costs become due. The Clerk 
estimates, of th.is average uncollected, that about 75 per cent, will be 
paid, so that out of the average taxation of $12,776 the loss is com- 
])aratively small, collections thereon finally reaching over $10,000. 

The Auditor of State further submitted to the (Commission the fol¬ 
lowing relative to exjienditure in salaries., fees and other ex])enses for 
all departments of the State government during the fiscal year ending 


October 31, 1899: 

Governor. $14,120 

Adjutant-General. 3,600 

Lieutenant Governor. 1,000 

Secretary of State. 13,250 

Auditor of State. 18,220 

Treasurer of State. 9,520 

Attorney-General. 16,100 

Superintendent of Public Instruction. 6,600 

Librarian. 6,020 

Reporter Supreme Court. 7,250 

Clerk Supreme Court. 10,100 

Judiciary Department. 52,450 

Judiciary of State. 174,000 

Bureau of Statistics. 9,200 

Board of Health. 9,300 

Capitol Building. 35,100 

Labor Department. 8,752 

Miscellaneous Department. 32,716 

Tax Commissioners. 9,226 


1 

i 


Total, 


$436,524 



























303 


Of this amount $207,o30 was paid in salaries to State officers alone 
and their deputies, and $203,7'4-0 in salaries'to Superior and Circuit 
Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys, or a total salary list, exclusive of 
■expenses, of $411,272. 

The nietliod in accounting hy State officers, of their collection of 
fees, it will be seen in the bill, has been somewhat amplified and sys¬ 
tematized, although retaining the general principles now provided for 
by law. The amendments in this respect the Commission recommends 
are for the purpose of securing greater uniformity and accuracy in 
reporting and collecting fees. 

The average of the salaries recommended in this bill for State 
officers is fairly within the extrenies of salaries paid the State officers 
in other States of the Union. In many of the States where compensa¬ 
tion is at figures lower than stated in this bill there is also, in 
greater or less deg-ree, additional revenues for the officers’ own use and 
profit coming through jierquisites of office. Idie Commission, how¬ 
ever, here recommends only a straight salary, and that all fees and 
collections of whatever kind, or from whatever source they may come, 
be made the property of the State. 


II. 


COUNTY OFFICERS^ FEES AND SALARIES. 


The inequalities and abuses of the present salary system are the 
effect of the working of a law which says, practically, to the Clerk, 
Sheriff and Eecorder, ^^You can have so much for your services, but^ 
notwithstanding you perform those services, if you do not collect your 
fees you can not have the salary allowed you by law.^^ On the other 
hand the same law says to the Auditor and Treasurer, ^‘^You can have 
affixed salary which will be paid you without regard to the resources 
of your ofiice,^^ and to the Treasurer in addition, ^‘'You shall have 6- 
per cent, of the delinquent tax fees.” In a w^ord, three of the five 
county officers must not only do their work, but collect the money to 
pay their salaries, and not only collect the money, but each succeed¬ 
ing officer can not enjoy, the benefit of the payment of his salary 
from whatever surplus of fees his predecessor may have collected. 
This, the Commission deems an injustice to the Clerk, Sheriff and 
Recorder. It is of the opinion that all county officers should be placed 
upon the same footing, and as it is impossible tO' devise a method under 
which the salaries of Auditors and Treasurers shall be contingent upon 
the amount of moneys coming into their respective offices, as earned 
by them, the only alternative is to give to tiie Clerk, Recorder and 
Sheriff, as well as to the Auditor and Treasurer, fixed salaries. 

The inequalities and abuses complained of under the present sys¬ 
tem can, in the opinion of the Commission, be overcome only through 
a direct payment of fees into the county treasury, by the county 
officers, and a direct payment of fixed salaries therefrom. For this 
reason the Commission recommends that the fees collected by each 
officer be not kept separate in a Clerk’s fund. Sheriff’s fund and 
Auditor’s fund, but that the fees, upon payment into the treasury, 
shall become part of the general county fund. It is believed under 
such a system and the incentive offered officers to collect their fees, 
that better taxation will be secured and larger collections obtained; 
a taxation more than sufficient to meet the salaries and a collection 
that will relieve the funds obtained from general taxation from any 
part of the payment of salaries to the five officers named. 


— 304 — 



III. 


RULES FOR FIXING SALARIES. 


It is the opinion of the Commission that the substitution of gen¬ 
eral rules for calculating officers^ salaries, according to population and 
necessary sei-Auces rendered, will he much better practice than speci¬ 
fying the amount to he paid to each county officer in the State. ITn- 
der the latter method, as has been heretofore observed, inequalities 
will continue to exist and. the salaries of officers will be subjected to 
change from Legislature to Legislature in answer to the demand of 
this or that officer and the exercise of his influence to secure additional 
salary. A Clerk, or other officer, comparing his salary witli that paid 
a like officer in an adjoining county, or a county of like population 
and conditions, has often been led to think that he should have more 
than the officer with whose salary comparison is made. Some excuse 
is always found for the urging of this increase, thus leading to con¬ 
tinued instability of the salary system. This, it was the purpose of 
the Commission, at the beginning of its deliberations, to rectify, and 
the conclusion was very early reached that it could be done in no 
other way than by applying rules that would act uniformly as to popu¬ 
lation and services throughout the State. Salary based upon popula¬ 
tion being thus provided for it became necessary to consider the other 
requisites of the constitution relative to the fixing of compensation 
for county officers as to necessary services rendered. This could be 
covered by taking up in detail a consideration of the multifarious 
duties of each officer or by basing the services rendered upon the in¬ 
come of the offices through fees, the latter applying particularly to 
the Clerk, Sheriff and Eecorder. 

It was not thought advisable to adopt the first named method on 
account of the complications that would arise and the great amount 


20—F. AND S. Com. 


-305— 



300 


of labor it would entail to arrive at anything like equitable arrange¬ 
ment of compensation for each of the officers named. It was, there¬ 
fore, assumed that taking into consideration the average amount of 
fees taxed each year and the average amount collected a much readier 
and more accurate basis of arrangement, as to services rendered could 
be obtained. The force of this can be seen by illustration in com¬ 
paring the inequalities of salaries under the present law. Thus, we 
have five counties, according to the census of 1890, of less than ten 
thousand population, Ohio, Sffirke, Union, Scott and Newton. The 
officers of Ohio County have never taxed or collected fees sufficient to 
meet the salaries allowed by law, and 3 ^et the Clerk of that county is 
given as much as the Clerk of Starke County, who has always taxed 
and collected more than enough to meet liis sala.r}^ What is true 
of the Clerk is also true of the Eecorder and Sheriff. On the other 
hand the Clerk of Newton Count}^ receiving $300 more salary than 
the Clerk of Starke County, taxed and collected, on the average, a 
little less than the Clerk of Starke County. 

In 1890 Blackford, Brown and Warren were of the same population, 
but the officers of Blackford County were allowed an amount greater 
than the officers of either of the other two counties. Other counties 
were equally favored along with Blackford, the salaries, as a whole, 
from Ohio in one extreme to Marion of the other, being placed without 
the observance of any uniform method or rule. 

Through the rules recommended by the Commission absolute uni¬ 
formity of salaries is secured on population. The officer of a county 
of certain population will receive no higher salary than the officer 
of a county of like population. The difference in services rendered is 
provided for by allowing 10 per cent, of the fees for collection, which 
acts, not only as an equalizer, but as an incentive to the officer to col¬ 
lect fees. The county as well as the officer will derive a benefit there¬ 
from, for every dollar in fees collected ninety cents thereof will belong 
to the county. 

On considering the Auditors office, however, it was found that the 
fees were so small that 10 per cent, thereof would not equalize his 
salary with that of the Clerk; therefore, the Commission sought an¬ 
other factor, and after much labor and experimental calculation, and 
with a wide discussion of objection or favor for this factor and that 
factor finally decided to recommend that an amount be paid the 
Auditor out of the county fund equal to 10 per cent, of the interest on 
the school fund collected by him. Under the old law he was allowed 
1 per cent, for managing the school fund whether it was loaned out 
or not; the Auditor thus had the advantage. Under the rule recom- 


307 


mended the addition to his salary, based upon population and percent¬ 
age of collections, will depend upon his activity and interest in keep¬ 
ing the school fund loaned out and his diligence in collecting the 
interest thereon. 

The equalization of the Treasurer’s salary is secured by allowing 
him 6 per cent, of the delinquent tax fees. Thus, it is believed that 
with the Clerk, Auditor, Recorder and Sherilf receiving 10 per cent, 
of fees collected by them in addition to the salary calculated on rules 
as to population, and the Auditor allowed an amount equal to 10 
per cent, of the school fund interest collected by him, and the Treas¬ 
urer allowed 6 per cent, for collecting delinquent taxes, a fair and 
just equalization of salaries and compensation can be maintained in 
^ach of the counties. 

The yearly increase of the Clerks’, Recorders’ and Sheriffs’ salaries 
will depend soilely upon the amount of fees taxed and fees collected. 
The increase of the Auditor’s salary will depend upon his diligence in 
managing the school fund, and that of the Treasurer’s on his activity 
in pushing delinquent tax collections. 

It is the opinion of the Commission that, the county officers named 
should be allowed no more than will accrue to tliem under the rules 
of population, with 10 per cent, for collection of fees, as applied to 
the Clerk, Recorder, Sheriff and Auditor, and 10 per cent, to the 
Auditor in addition for collecting school fund interest, and 6 per cent, 
to the Treasurer for collecting delinquent taxes, since it has been 
apparent in our investigation that the salaries already allowed the 
officers of Indiana average higher, as a rule, than those in Ohio, Illi¬ 
nois or Michigan. 

The Commission believes there should be, as has been incorporated 
in the bill, an absolute prohibition of any additional coanpensation for 
extra work, since to open the door along that line would lead to the 
renewal of the inequalities of salaries and compensation as they now 
-e^xist. 

GENERAL COMMENT. 

Of all the officers, State and county, under the law of 1895 the 
Clerk, Sheriff and Recorder are alone compensated by a method that 
makes their salaries contingent upon fees collected. This, it is the 
opinion of the Commission, has had as much to do as anything else in 
causing dissatisfaction and injustice. There is no reason why these 
officers should be singled out for a contingent salary while the Auditor 
nnd Treasurer are paid fixed salaries. This impels us to emphasize the 


308 


payment of fixed salaries to the five county officers, that is, if under- 
the rule recommended an officer is entitled to $1,500 aside from his 
percentage of fees he should be paid the $1,500, and not be made to 
wait upon his collection of fees to receive it. 

By referring to statistics included in this report it will be noted 
that under the present system there are, in many counties of the 
State, large surpluses carried in the Clerk’s fund, Kecorder’s fund and 
Sheriff’s fund. Owing to ambiguity of the law much of this surplus 
has remained idle from year to year, neither the Clerk, Sheriff or 
Recorder being able to draw upon it for deficiency in salary without 
violating the law; on the other hand, each coming into office is com¬ 
pelled to tax his salary and collect it before he can draw it, and in no 
instance has any officer been able, in his first year of service, to make 
his full salary. It has come to him in time, but while he was working 
under a deficiency of salary he was under the pressure of paying his 
deputies regularly and in full, and in meeting all other expenses of 
his office chargeable to him. Thus, with these burdens and the factor 
of contingency of salary, the county officer has a long way to go 
before he is fully compensated for his services. A fixed salary will not 
only go far in doing away vdth the effects of these evils, but will 
render unnecessary that greater evil, extra compensation through 
extra work. 

A not immaterial part of the Clerk’s and Sheriff’s business is the 
collection of fees taxed by their predecessors. Heretofore', the Clerks 
and Sheriffs collecting have had no compensation for this service,, 
it being rendered reciprocally by predecessors and successors and 
handed down as one of the burdens of the office; but there is no good 
reason why the officers collecting should not be compensated for such, 
work. It is true if the predecessor was paid all that w^as due him on 
salary under the law that the fees taxed by him are collected by the 
successor for the use of the county. The fees are paid into the Clerks’ 
or Sheriffs’ fund and there they remain, in many instances, only to 
swell an idle surplus, or, as is true in many other instances, to lose 
their identity in the general county fund. The predecessor has been 
paid in full and his successor in office collects fees that, under the 
present law, can not be used, even in part, toward the payment of his 
salary. On the other hand it would be equally unjust to the successor 
to allow 10 per cent, of these previously taxed fees to be paid under 
the 10 per cent, rule recommended by the Commission to the prede¬ 
cessor alone, and it would also be unjust to the predecessor to allow 
the full percentage of collection to be paid his successor. Therefore, 
the Commission recommends, as has been incorporated in the bill 


'll 

4 


309 


lierewith presented, that the percentage be equally divided between 
the predecessor and successor. 

There can he no doubt that the Sherift's have just cause of complaint 
in the low mileage allowed them for transferring prisoners to the 
reformatories and prisons and the insane to hospitals. The mile¬ 
age allowed by the present law, in some cases, has not been enough 
to cover railroad fare, the losses thereunder being increased by no 
provision for hotel or other necessary expenses. There has, perhaps, 
been as much dissatisfaction expressed by the Sheriffs on this account 
as over the deficiency in salary or other burdens pertaining to the 
office. The Commission believes this can be remedied by an allow¬ 
ance of actual expenses presented to the County Commissioners and 
approved by them, and has, therefore, provided for such allowance in 
the bill under consideration. The Commission has also deemed it best 
to do away wholly with all incomes heretofore accruing to Sheriff's 
through boarding prisoners and other perquisites, by including them 
and all other items of expense in appropriations made by County 
Councils. 

While the Sheriffs, as learned from the reports presented to this 
Commission, collect less than any of the county officers, and thereby 
suffer more through the rule of contingency in deficiency of salary 
paid, it is believed that through the privileges they enjoy, they have 
the greater compensation, as a Avhole. This is especially due to the 
care of the jail and boarding prisoners. As an illustration: In one 
county of the State the salary of the Sheriff, under the law of 1895, 
is $2,300; of this, he reported to the Commission that from March 1, 
1897, to March 1, 1899, that he taxed, on an average, only $1,673 
yearly and collected $1,249. He paid $780 to deputies, leaving him 
net out of his salary collected, $469. Had he collected his full salary 
he would have had net $1,520, but this Sheriff retained not only 
allowances, perquisites and the like, but failed or rather refused to 
pay into the treasury his ordinary fees. At the time the Commission 
made its investigation he was six quarters in arrears with his reports. 
He claimed that he was awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court 
as to his right to retain his per diem, etc. This per diem, with profit 
for boarding prisoners, gave him a sum equal to the salary allowed by 
law. He was further allowed $250 for dare of court house, jail and 
grounds; all told, he made net out of his fees and allowances, about 
$2,500. 

Another illustration of more forcible character is the following: 
A Sheriff of one of the counties whose salary is $5,300, paid to depu¬ 
ties $5,820, or $520 more than the salary allowed by law. He collected 


310 


on an average $3,619 in fees, thus leaving him short $1,651, or¬ 
pins the excess paid deputies over salary allowed a deficit in salary of' 
$2,151, hut from lioarding prisoners, allowances and the like his net. 
compensation was from $8,000 to $10,(>00 the year. 

This feature of the Sheriffs’ gains which in every case covers the 
deficiency in collection of fees, is fully set out in the digest of county 
officers’ fees, and ])ayment on extras given in the first part of this- 
report. 

So long as this condition is permitted to continue so long will 
there remain inequalities in county officers’ salaries in favor of the 
Sheriff. The Commission, therefore, deems it the hetter method to 
pay fixed salaries as has heen elaborated above and to disallow all 
perquisites and allowances whatsoever, including per diem, pay for 
hoarding prisoners, turnkeys’ fees, etc. 

The specific complaint of the County Recorders, in addition to what 
has already heen mentioned above, has been that t'lie more work that 
accrues to their office the greater is the necessity for the employment’ 
of additional dejiiities. In the progressive and rapidly developing 
counties of the State the llecorders, no douht, suffer great hardship 
from increase of work. Ordinarily, they could conduct their offices- 
upon small payments of salaries to deputies, leaving on the average, 
in the average county, a net compensation of from $1,000 to $1,500;, 
hut at a time when the number of instruments large!}" increase the 
demand made upon the deputies is such that they must work far 
into the night, sometimes until midnight, or additional })eople must 
be employed. This has been directly brought to the attention of the 
Commission, and it is believed that the allowance of 10 per cent, of 
th.e fees herein serves another good purpose in providing resources- 
for the County Eecorder to pay for any extra labor that may be called 
for. 

The Auditor’s office, when we come to consider compensation for 
that officer, presents peculiar and almost separate conditions of work. 
With the affairs of a county the Auditor is in close touch, for there is 
very little done by any of the other officers that does not go through 
the Auditor’s office. Again it is observed that any additional legis¬ 
lation, relative to taxation and conduct of county affairs, imposes 
more or less extra burdens upon the Auditor. Yet, with all the work 
connected with this office, nothing can be found unless it is the school 
fund, that will permit calculations relative to services rendered suffi¬ 
cient to equalize the salary of the Auditor with that of the Clerk. 
Particularly is this true in view of recent legislation where the 
Auditor is required to add to his labors the recording and accounting 


311 


of the County Council’s business and the noting and calculations at¬ 
tending the moTtgage exemption law. Fot County Council work he 
was given an extra compensation, a minimum of $200 and maximum 
of $600, but for mortgage exemption there was none, although this 
line of work requires from a month to tw'o months each year of good 
solid work in addition to the other duties of the office. In many 
counties of the State gravel roads have increased the labors of the 
office, and in others ditching, and so on, here and there throughout 
the State can be found a labor that increases the labor in the Auditors 
office in one county, and another kind of labor increasing it in another 
county, but there is not such uniformity in all this line of work as 
to admit of fixing a salary based upon any one of the various kinds 
presented. Any attempt in this direction would lead to confusion and 
the maintenance of inequalities. The Commission, therefore, is of the 
opinion that a factor that will uniformly permit an addition to salary 
based on population to express services rendered can alone meet the 
requirements of the problem. It is believed that ten per cent, of the 
fees and an amount equal to ten per cent, of the school fund interest 
collected, heretofore mentioned, and the same rule of salary as to popu¬ 
lation as applies to Clerks will secure an equality of salary paid to 
the Clerks and Auditors of which tliere can be no reasonable com¬ 
plaint. 

Very little complaint has come from the Treasurers except gen¬ 
erally that the salaries allowed them is not sufficient. Under the rule 
recommended in the Fee and Salary Commission bill the salary will be 
somewhat increased, and this, with the continuance of the rule of al¬ 
lowing the Treasurers six per cent, of the fees on delinquent taxes col¬ 
lected it is believed will meet what the situation demands. 

With no extra allowances and the dropping of per diems, the pay¬ 
ment of all fees into the treasury and the payment out thereof of all 
fixed salaries, as indicated in the bill herewith submitted, the Com¬ 
mission thinks the only reasonable and equitable solution of the fee 
and salary problem has been obtained. 


IV. 


MINOR OFFICES. 


The Commission’s attention was urged in its deliberations to the 
abuses of the per diem system as applied to compensation for 
Township Trustees, Township Assessors, County Superintendents and 
the like. Much discussion was given this question and various plans 
were suggested and experimented with looking to the placing of these 
officers upon fixed salary, hut here again arose the danger of compli¬ 
cation in face of the desire of the Commission to secure simplicity 
throughout. To fix such salaries upon population will require a 
wide variation of rules and in great measure rules antagonistic to those 
recommended for application to the salaries of Clerk, Auditor, Recor¬ 
der, Sheriff and Treasurer. 

The aid of the County Council was finally recognized in this connec¬ 
tion and has afforded a just and easy way out of the perplexities caused 
by the problem. The County Council, it was concluded, being made 
up of representative men in each county, and men who, through the 
advantages of their position, are from year to year, placed in 
close touch with the needs and demands of the minor offices named, 
would, in the end, have better data upon which to make appropriations 
for such compensation, even under a per diem allowance than any 
legislative body could have, through udiatever information might be 
presented to it. Through investigation along this line the Commis¬ 
sion gave weighty consideration to section 10 of an act concerning 
township business, approved February 27, 1899, and marked in 
the appendix. 

It was impressed upon the minds of the Commission that this 
rule, extended to the County Council, relative to other officers serving 
under a per diem would satisfactorily reform the system now in 
vogue and coimteract and prevent the abuses arising thereunder. 


-312- 



V. 


JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. 


It became a question with the Commission whether to recommend 
further extension of the salary system to Justices of the Peace, the 
initial legislation for which was enacted by the last General Assem¬ 
bly, or to favor leaving the compensation for such Justices, not already 
provided with salaries, to fees alone. This line of investigation was 
somewhat conspicuous in our first general deliberations as to what 
should be done and what not. In pursuing it it was decided to com¬ 
municate with each Justice of the Peace in the State in the hope of 
securing proper information to guide us. After a limited and experi¬ 
mental effort in this direction the results were so unsatisfactory that 
it was deemed best to forego further effort. The reports we received 
were unreliable and meager, as not more than one-fifth of the officers 
named, with whom we sought correspondence, replied to our questions 
which were as follows: 

1. What do you advise to secure a betterment of the fee and salary system 
for Justices of the Peace and Constables? 

2. Do you think a salary fixed upon an amount of fees collected by each of 
the above officers preferable to the present system ? 

3. What views do you entertain and urge regarding the question of fees and 
salaries of State and county officers? 

4. What was the total amount of fees charged by you from March 1, 1897, 
to March 1, 189.)? 

5. What was the total amount collected by you during the same period? 

C. What amount of these fees were your own ? 

7. What amount of these fees belonged to your Constable? 

The replies we received came from Justices of the Peace in the 
average rural townships. One answering the first question wrote: 

do not know what would be best in small places. I make most of 


-313- 



314 


my money oai collections, deeds, affidavits, soldiej's’ matteTS, etc. I 
have very few cases and. my Constable did not qualify because there 
was not enough coinpensation to justify him hi performing the duties 
of the office.^^ 

To the second question the same officer replied: ^Tf the salary 
was large, it would be the better system because it would mean more 
pay for me. The salary of each eJustice of the Peace should not be 
less than three hundred dollars a year, but I do not make the half 
of it.^^ 

As to collection of fees charged during the two years named he said 
it amounted to only $107.50, or an average of $53.75; and the yearly 
average amount belonging to him was $32.90, while the fees belonging 
to the Constable were $20.85. 

Another replied: ‘'T think each Justice of the Peace should be on 
a salary, say from four hundred to five hundred dollars a year. All 
fees from all criminal cases should be paid to the State and all civil 
fees should go to the Justice of the Peace, as under the present sys¬ 
tem. This would put the Justices on a more equitable plane of com¬ 
pensation. As it is, the Justices in the larger towns get all the 
business and it is hard to procure men, fit to fill it, to take the office. 
In small townships each Constable should receive a salary of not less 
than two hundred and fifty dollars a year, with no fees in criminal 
cases.^^ 

This Justice collected, in about a year and a half, $78.30 in fees, 
of which amount $(>1.95 l>elonged to him. 

Another Justice of the Peace reported that he taxed in two years 
only $8.60, and that he collected $6.50, of which amount $4.60 
belonged to him, the remainder to the Constable. 

Another replied that the number of Justices of the Peace ought to 
be reduced to not more than two in a township. This Justice reported 
that he had taxed on cases $701.25 during the two years specified 
and had collected $650, of which he and the Constable received $320 
each. 

One Justice reported that his taxation of fees, for the two years, 
was $76.66, of which was collected $52.75, $17.20 belonging to him 
and $35.52 to the Constable. 

This information covers all the Commission received from Justices 
of the Peace, and it was so unavailable for our purpose that 
communication with officers of this class was discontinued. After¬ 
ward, from persons familiar with the practice of the Justice of the 
Peace court, the Commission received information in a general way 


315 


that confirmed it in the opinion that no salary system could be estab¬ 
lished that would apply equitably to this class of officers, from the 
one doing the least business to the one doing the largest business in 
the State. The results of our deliberations and conclusions of our best 
judgment were finally reduced to the form of a bill, marked in the 
appendix This we recommend to the legislature for enactment. 

It is believed that this bill is an improvement upon the laws now re¬ 
lating to the same subject. 

First: because it widens the payment of salaries to Justices of the 
Peace and applies to Constables as well, in townships that contain 
cities or parts of cities from ten thousand population to one hundred 
thousand population or more. Necessarily, the salaries fixed in the 
bill are somewhat arbitrary, as it was found that no safe rule in calcu¬ 
lation would produce the equality and uniformity desired. Experi¬ 
mental calculation to discover a rule of this kind was discarded, 
leaving the judgment of the Commission as to what the salaries should 
be for Justices of the Peace in the classes specified to be directed by 
what already has Ijceo done toward placing these officers on salaries. 

Second: It will be noted in the illustrations given above that 
basing the salaries for Justices of the l^eace, in the average rural town¬ 
ship, upon fees taxed and collected would be impossible, as they are so 
small as not to warrant the fixing of anything like a just sum for com- 
pensatioii without danger of overpayment. From the replies received 
it is convincing that the opportunities for the abuses complained of 
in the fee system are either absent in townships of the average rural 
classes, or are so limited that only in rare instances do they occur. On 
the other hand, if salaries for Justices of the Peace, in this class of 
townshi})s, are arbitrarily fixed, no equitableness could be secured; for 
the Justice in one township who would come near earning a salary 
of three hundred dollars, which would be the proper minimum, a 
Justice in another township of like population and conditions would 
not earn one-half that amount through fees. Fees taxed and collected 
are alone the proper indication of the amount of business in each 
township. Hence, the Commission concluded to leave this class of 
Justices of the Peace to be compensated by fees. 

Third: It is the opinion of the Commission that the abuses arising 
under the fee system, as applied to Justices of the Peace and Consta¬ 
bles, occur, for the great part, in townships of large and increasing 
population, and that these abuses can be done away with only by 
placing these officers upon salary. The minimum of population may 
be fixed at five thousand, but in townships of this class, as in town- 


316 


ships of the strictly rural class, the abuses are, apparently, so few and 
the difficulty in fixing an equitable salary so great, that it was thought 
best to leave Justices of the Peace in townships of ten thousand 
population or less to earn their compensation by fees. 

Fourth: With Justices of the Peace on salary, as with officers of 
higher class, who collect fees, the purpose to collect only enough 
fees, where the salary is contingent on fees, to pay that salary, is 
strongly in evidence. It is the complaint that the Justices of the 
Peace in Marion and other counties receiving salaries neglect alto¬ 
gether the collection of fees where fees do not enter into the question 
of salary. The non-collection of fees is the one evil of the salary 
system, and it can be overcome only by offering along with the salary 
some incentive to collect fees. Hence, as regards the County Clerks, 
Sheriffs and Eecorders being given, in the general fee and salary bill, 
10 per cent, of their collections to induce them to collect fees; so the 
Commission would recommend that the Justices of the Peace placed 
upon salary be given 5 per cent, of their collections to insure closer 
attention to this part of their duties. 

It is somewhat anomalous that an officer should be paid a salary for 
the performance of certain duties and in addition given a percentage of 
collections for strict attention to one particular line of those duties. It 
is the poison of the old fee system transmitted to the salary system, and 
the Commission has been unable to devise any means to eradicate it. 
It is very evident that a percentage of fees allowed the collecting 
officer will insure better collections and so increase the amount of 
revenue from this source that the county or township can make avail¬ 
able toward the payment of salaries. For this reason alone the Com¬ 
mission recommends that Justices of the Peace upon salary be allowed 
a percentage for collecting, what, under a strict sense and observance 
of duty, they should collect without additional compensation. 

It will be noted that the bill relating to Justices of the Peace 
amplifies and strengthens the duty of collecting and reporting such 
collections each quarter, and that under its provision of classification 
of salary, the evils occurring where compensation is based altogether 
upon fees earned, can, in a great measure, be removed. 

Keeping in view the allowance of percentage of fees as well as 
salary, the Commission, as in the case of county officers, sought to 
limit the salaries allowed to such sums which, with the addition of 
fees, would give each officer a compensation at least equal to what he 
is receiving now, or in any event an immaterial increase over it. 


317 


The Commission would recommend to the earnest and favorable- 
consideration of the Sixty-second General Assembly the bills herewith 
submitted, as set out in the appendix to this report. 



Commissioners.- 




r. 






V I 


•>> 



;^V^ ■ 




•V- :^' 





i V 

^ * ' 


-v^-V-. r* 

"‘i‘- 


5^"^ '• , A 'V> • .o ;B 

lU:-- '■ * 5 'y 

■ .. ■ :---:.ft<-’n s 


4 ‘•tf* rft - „ '4 v^\ ..* ^ r - .* r — ,1 __ 

■ ' i’:-'; -■•-"■■': r CW'V'-r i * . ■ •»' v|M 

^ \% J f - ' ‘Ifcl 





. «■• 

4 *.' .-'W** *': 


"‘a..- * IDr-* .cl 'Jvi iJ . *• » V <, - 

•.*•*' 2 ”|l • . • ‘ 


'7" 

• 4 > ^ ^ 

'~ % r' -• V«^ % 


1 •'• 3 .'?V*-^' 



.*••“ j* 

,,-r^i:'''.?,v- 

•-f- '.^ f". W.- • -.-?•' 

^ •*-'■. * . “ . # • 

rv • '^ • -•"■ •• 

u^k. .^,; .-.•. ,, « * 

^ V,. ' '- ►*. , 

& i. •■.-!>■ 




- ^ C rtVOfias •■ A' ^' ■ ^ "1' ■ 

■ • • \ •• 




V Z-t- 


.♦v 


\r- --'• ■ ■ ■yi-' f ^ ‘‘K -' "=» ■ • ••■♦S - i 

'iff*..- ■ -' ;■- - ■ ■■': 




■>- . 

. ? 




♦C • * ^ ^ - • - 



> 1. 


f 4 I 


t A ’ • *• ^ '^ •■ 

^-*A‘ -■ *' 

‘" ISi^'■■?t^i v> ; 


• ■ ’.^ 7 -' •^. -ft’' ■ ,;'.'Vrt' 

.'1 • 



- . 1 

"" ■ 

LT > " ** ^ ■' * 



j» 

♦• «' 
r- > 


* ^ 






■ - ' • ‘^ >-* 7 ,! 

.... ■^■■' \ ■■ - ^ 


^ ? . - V* 

*. * * 


.4 

•■ V 


•A-\* N' 




• •• 

Hf- 


F r.^ H • 

. r*^ * 


. •' ■-: .4 




- -.y 

. ^ > ' 


A-; >', 


’*»- 




> 




^ I «-l W ^ £ 




APPENDIX. 


The State Fee and Salary Commission presents for the considera¬ 
tion of the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, of 1901, the 
following hills, marked A, B, C and E, relative to the compensation 
of State, county and township officers. The section marked D occurs 
in the Act concerning township business passed by the General As¬ 
sembly of 1899, and is here quoted for ready reference. 


- 319 - 




^ 


—. ^-^-a 




^ » 


?r'.-*, f.. 

*lk'^- f 

6 f 

V-- • •■■ •'-T'^/■-'^-t''* •f 




^liv -t 





\ - 


r .* 


' ' fl' 



. t‘ ^ iK^ 

- 


•* t 









:r* ^ '-fe 

te-v 4» ^^9 ^ 





_ 7'^-* r-' 






A. 


A BILL FOR 

All act concerning the compensation and duties of certain public officers 
therein named, prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions 
and repealing all laws and parts of laws in conflict therewith. 

Section 1. lie it enacted by the (ireneral Assembly of the State of 
Indiana, That the persons and officers in this act named shall be enti¬ 
tled to receive for their services the compensation hereinafter allowed 
and set out, and none other. 

Sec. 2. The salary of the Governor shall he eight thousand dol¬ 
lars ($8,000) a year. 

The salary of the Governor’s private secretary shall he two thousand 
four hundred dollars ($2,400) a year. 

The salary of the Governor’s clerk shall he eight hundred and sixty 
dollars ($860) a year. 

The salary of the Governor’s messenger shall he eight hundred and 
sixty dollars ($860) a year. 

The salary of the Adjutant-General shall he one thousand eight 
hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Adjutant-General’s clerk shall he one thousand 
two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

The salary of the Quartermaster-General shall he one thousand two 
hundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

Sec. 3. The salary of the Lieutenant-Governor, in addition to his 
pay as President of the Senate, shall he one thousand dollars ($1,000) 
a year. 


Sec. 4. The salary of the Secretary of State shall he six thousand 
five hundred dollars ($6,500) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Secretary of State shall he one thousand 
eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Secretary of State’s clerk shall he one thousand 
dollars ($1,000) a year. 


21-F. AND S. Com. 


- 321 - 



322 


The salary of the Secretary of State's messenger and stenographer 
shall he six hundred dollars ($600) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Printing and Stationery Bureau 
shall he one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. 

Sec. 5. The salary of the Auditor of State shall he seven thousand 
five hundred dollars ($7,500) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Auditor of State shall he two thousand 
five hundred dollars ($2,500) a year. 

The salary of the Settlement Clerk of the Auditor of State shall he 
one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Insurance Department shall he one 
thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Land Department shall he one thou¬ 
sand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Building and Loan Department shall 
he one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Auditor of State’s stenographer shall he seven 
hundred and twenty dollars ($720) a year. 

Sec. 6. The salary of the Treasurer of State shall he six thousand 
five hundred dollars ($6,500) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Treasurer of State shall he two thousand 
dollars ($2,000) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Treasurer of State shall he one thou¬ 
sand two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

Sec. 7. The salary of the Attorney-General shall he seven thou¬ 
sand five hundred dollars ($7,500) a year. 

The salary of the Assistant Attomey-General shall he two thousand 
four hundred dollars ($2,400) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Attorney-General shall he one thousand 
eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Attorney-GeneraTs traveling deputy shall he one 
thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Attorney-GeneraTs stenographer and clerk shall 
he nine hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

The salary of the Attorney-GeneraTs second stenogivapher shall he 
seven hundred and twenty dollars ($720) a year. 

Sec.- 8. The salary of each of the Judges of the Supreme Court 
sliall he six thousand dollars ($6,000) a year. 

The salary of the Librarian of the Law Library of the Supreme 
Court shall he one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. 


323 


The salai'}' of the SheTiff of the Supreme Court shall he six hundred 
dollars ($600) a 3 ^ear. 

The salary of the Messenger of the Supreme Court shall be nine 
hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

The allowance to each of the Judges of the Supreme Court for 
stenographic service shall he five hundred dollars ($500) a year. 

Sec. 9. The salary of each of the Judges of the Appellate Court 
shall he five thousand dollars ($5,000) a year. 

The allowance to each of the Judges of the Appellate Court for 
stenographic service shall he three hundred dollars ($300) a year. 

Sec. 10. The salary of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Appel¬ 
late Court shall he five thousand dollars ($5,000) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be one 
thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a 3 '^ear. 

The salary of the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court 
shall he one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

The salary of the stenographer of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
shall he nine hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

The salary of the Eecord Clerk of the Supreme Court shall he seven 
hundred and fifty dollars ($750) a year. 

Sec. 11. The salary of the Ileporter of the Supreme Court shall 
he five thousand dollars ($5,000) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Eeporter of the Supreme Court shall he 
one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Eeporter of the Supreme Court shall 
be one thousand dollars ($1,000) a year. 

The salary of the stenographer of the Eeporter of the Supreme 
Court shall be six hundred dollars ($600) a year. 

Sec. 12. The salary of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
shall be three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) a year. 

The salary of the Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction 
shall he one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. 

The salary of the Clerk of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
shall he nine hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

The salary of the stenographer of the Superintendent of Public In¬ 
struction shall he six hundred dollars ($600) a year. 

Sec. 13. The salary of the Director of the Department of Geology 
and Natural Eesources (or State Geologist) shall he two thousand five 
hundred dollars ($2,500) a year. 


324 


The salary of the Clerk of the State (ieologist shall he seven hun¬ 
dred and twenty dollars ($720) a year. 

The salary of tlie Inspector of Mines shall be one thousand five hun¬ 
dred dollars ($1,500) a year. 

The salary of the Assistant Inspector of Mines shall be one thou¬ 
sand dollars ($1,000) a year. 

The salary of the Supervisor of Natural Gas shall be one thousand 
two hundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

Sec. 14. I'he salary of the Secretary of the State Hoard of Health 
shall be two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) a year. 

The salary of the clerk of the Secretary of the State Board of Health 
shall be nine hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

Sec. 15. The salary of the C'hief of the Bureau of Statistics shall 
be two thousand dollars ($2,000) a year. 

The salary of tlie Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Statistics shall be 
one thousand two liundred dollars ($1,200) a year. 

Sec. 16. The salary of the State Librarian shall be one thousand 
five hundred dollars ($1,500) a year. 

The salary of the first Assistant Librarian shall be nine hundred 
dollars ($900) a year. 

The salary of the second Assistant State Librarian sliall be nine 
hundred dollars ($900) a year. 

The salary of the Janitor of the State Library shall be seven hun¬ 
dred and twenty dollars ($720) a year. 

Sec. 17. All allowances now or hereafter made by law for expenses 
connected with any of the offices named in the foregoing sections, in¬ 
cluding pay of deputies and assistants, shall be used exclusively for the 
purposes for which such allowances have been or shall be made; and 
no part of any such allowance shall belong to, or be retained by, any 
of the officers for whom compensation has been hereinbefore provided, 
except as hereinbefore expressly stated. In all cases where specific 
compensation is now or shall hereafter be ]jrovided by law for any 
deputy or assistant of any officer named in any of the preceding sec¬ 
tions, such compensation shall be paid directly to and be receipted for 
by such deputy or assistant, who shall also make and file an affidavit 
with the Auditor of State, that he has actually performed the service 
to which such compensation is attached, and that no part thereof has 
been or will be directly or indirectly divided Avith or ]iaid to any other 
person on account of or by reason of such employment. 


325 


Sec. 18. It shall he the duty of the Secretary of State, and Auditor 
of State, to ta>x for the use of the State of Indiana the fees and charges 
now allowed by law, or which may hereafter he allowed by law, for 
services in their respective offices, and^ such fees and charges shall he 
paid at the time such services are rendered; provided, that no fees shall 
he charged against the United States, or this, or any other State, or 
any county of this State, nor against any officer thereof, for any 
service required for official use. And the Secretary of State and Audi¬ 
tor of State shall each keep in a book, to he used for that purpose, 
which hook shall he a public record, an accurate account showing all 
costs, fees and charges so taxed and collected, and of all moneys re¬ 
ceived by them respectively by virtue of their said offices, which ac¬ 
count shall show the person or corporation from whom, the cause for 
which, and the date when collected. On the first Monday in January, 
April,, July and October of each year said officers shall each make a 
sworn report to the Treasurer of State, showing the amount of 
such collections made by them respectively during the preceding quar¬ 
ter, the dates when, the causes for which, and the persons or corpora¬ 
tions from whom collected; and the whole amount of the collections 
so made shall thereupon by each of said officers respectively be paid 
into the State Treasury. 

Sec. 19. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Supreme Court 
to tax for the use of the State of Indiana, in books wliich shall be pub¬ 
lic records, and to keep therein an accurate account of, all fees and 
charges of his office, as now fixed by law, or which may hereafter be 
fixed by law, and of all moneys charged or received in his office for 
any and all services performed by him or by his deputies, clerks or as¬ 
sistants, or by any of his predecessors, or their deputies, clerks or as¬ 
sistants; provided, that no fees shall be charged against the United 
States, or this, or any other State, or any county of this State, or 
against any officer thereof, for any service required for official use. 
And on the first Monday in January, April, July and October of each 
year the said Clerk of the Supreme Court shall make a sworn report 
to the Treasurer of State, showing the amount of all such fees and 
charges collected by him during the preceding quarter, and the dates 
when, the causes for which, and the persons or corporations from 
whom collected; and the whole amount of all moneys so collected in 
said Clerk's office during the preceding quarter, for any and all 
services performed by him or his deputies, clerks or assistants, shall 
thereupon be paid into the State Treasury. 


326 


Sec. 20. It shall he the duty of the Attorney-Generar to keep in a 
substantial record hook, prepared for that purpose, and which shall he 
a public record, an itemized account of the amounts collected by him, 
showing when, for what, and f];om whom received. And on the first 
Monday in January, April, July and October of each year the Attor¬ 
ney-General shall make out and file with the Treasurer of State a 
sworn report of such recoveries and collections made by him, during 
the preceding quarter, stating also in such report the officers to whom, 
the causes for which, and the dates when he has paid over any part 
or parts of amounts so collected, and filing with his report the receipts 
of officers to whom such payments have been made, and stating also 
the balance remaining in his hands; which balance shall thereupon be 
paid into the State Treasury. 

Sec. 21. On receiving such quarterly reports from the Secretary 
of state. Auditor of State, Clerk of the Supreme Court and Attomey- 
General, and on receiving from each of said officei’S the balance in 
money shown due the State in such reports respectively, the Treasurer 
of State shall place such reports on file and shall issue to each of said 
officers a receipt for the balance by him so paid into the State Treas¬ 
ury, which receipt shall show the person from whom, the date when, 
and the cause for which each item of money shown in such reports, 
respectively, was received. The Treasurer of State, or his deputy, is 
authorized to administer the oath required to be made to such quar¬ 
terly reports. 

Sec. 22. All salaries and compensation for services due to officers 
and their deputies, and payable out of the State Treasury, shall be paid 
to them quarterly, on the first Monday in January, April, July and 
October of each year, upon warrants issued by the Auditor of State. 
Before any such warrant for quarterly payment shall be issued to the 
Secretary of State, Auditor of State, Clerk of the Supreme Court or 
Attorney-General, such officer shall file with the Auditor of State the 
receipt issued to him by the Treasurer of State for such quarter; and 
it shall be unlawful for the Treasurer of State to make payment on any 
such warrant issued to any officer who is required to file quarterly re¬ 
ports with him, as aforesaid, until such report has been filed and a re¬ 
ceipt issued thereon, as hereinbefore provided. On receiving any re¬ 
ceipt issued by the Treasurer of State, as provided for in the last pre¬ 
ceding section, the Auditor shall at once charge the Treasurer with 
the amount shown in such receipt to have been paid into the State 
Treasury. 


1 


327 


Sec. 23. It shall be the duty of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the 
Sheriff, the Auditor, the Eecorder and the Treasurer of each county in 
this State to tax for the use of such county, and to keep an accurate 
account of all fees and charges of his office, as now fixed by law, or 
which may hereafter be fixed by law, and of all moneys charged or re¬ 
ceived in his office for any and all services rendered by any of such 
officers respectively, or by the deputies or assistants of any such offi¬ 
cer; provided, that no fees shall be charged against the United States 
or any of them, nor against any county or township of this State, or 
any officer thereof, for any service required for official use. And on 
the first Monday in January, April, July and October of each year, 
the said Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sheriff, Auditor, Eecorder and 
Treasurer shall each make a sworn report to the Treasurer of his said 
county, showing the amount of all fees and charges collected during 
the preceding quarter and the date when, the causes for which, and 
the persons from whom, collected; and the whole amount of all 
moneys so reported as collected by each of said officers respectively for 
any and all services rendered by him or any of his deputies or assistants 
shall thereupon be paid into the hands of the County Treasurer, and 
be credited to the general fund of the county. All moneys now kept 
separate in ^^county officers funds^^ shall also at once be transferred 
and covered into the general funds of the respective counties. At 
the time said quarterly reports of fees and collections are so filed, the 
Auditor shall also file a sworn statement of the amount of interest 
collected by him and paid into the treasury during the preceding 
quarter on all school fund loans in his charge; and the Treasurer 
shall likewise file a sworn statement showing the amount of delin¬ 
quent taxes collected by him during the same period. The County 
Treasurer, or his deputy, is authorized to administer the oath re¬ 
quired to be made to such quarterly reports and statements, ex¬ 
cept the oath of the Treasurer himself, which shall be administered 
by the County Auditor or his deputy. 

Sec. 24. On receiving such quarterly- reports from said county 
officers, the Treasurer shall file and carefully preserve the same, in¬ 
cluding his own report and statement, and shall give to each of said 
officers a receipt for all moneys paid by them respectively into the 
county treasury; and shall also give to the Auditor a statement 
of the amount shown in his report of interest collected on school 
funds, and make out for himself a statement of the amount shown in 
his report of delinquent taxes collected. 


828 


Sec. 25. Hereafter no compensation or allowance whatever shall 
be made to any Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sheriff, Auditor, Recorder 
or Treasurer of any county in this State for any services rendered by 
such officer or any of his deputies or assistants, save only the com¬ 
pensation hereinafter provided for, which compensation is graded in 
proportion to the population of the several counties and the neces¬ 
sary services required of each of said officers in their respective 
counties; and all laws and parts of laws authorizing any other com¬ 
pensation or any other allowances or payments of moneys, whether 
out of the county treasury or otherwise, to any of said officers, are 
hereby repealed. 

Sec. 26. The Clerk of the Circuit Court of each county in this 
State shall be allowed for all his services, the following compensa¬ 
tion, and none other: For the first ten thousand population of his 
county, or less, as shown by the last preceding United States census, 
he shall be allowed and paid at the rate of one hundred and twenty 
dollars ($120) a year for each thousand population, and for all popula¬ 
tion over ten thousand, at the rate of eighty dollars ($80) a year for 
■each thousand. In addition to such salary, such Clerk shall be al¬ 
lowed and paid a sum equal to ten per cent, of all fees and charges 
taxed by him for his own services and collected by him and paid into 
the county treasury. 

Sec. 27. The Sheriff of each county in this State shall be allowed 
for all his services the following compensation, and none other: For 
the first ten thousand population of his county, or less, as shown by 
the last preceding United States census, he shall be allow^ed and paid 
iat the rate of one hundred and ten dollars ($110) a year for each thou¬ 
sand population; and for all population over ten thousand at the rate 
of seventy dollars ($70) a year for each thousand. In addition to,such 
salary, such Sheriff shall be allowed and paid a sum equal to ten per 
cent, of all fees and charges taxed by him for his own services and 
collected by him and paid into the county treasury. 

Sec. 28. The Auditor of each county in this State shall be allowed 
for all his services the following compensation, and none other: For 
the first ten thousand population of his county, or less, as shown by 
the last preceding United States census, he shall be allowed and paid 
at the rate of one hundred and twenty dollars ($120) a year for each 
thousand population; and for all population over ten thousand, at the 
rate of eighty dollars ($80) a year for each thousand. In addition to 


329 


such salary^ such Auditor shall be allowed and paid a sum equal to ten 
per cent, of all fees and charges taxed by him for his own services and 
collected and paid into'the county treasury; and also a sum equal to 
ten per cent, of the interest on school funds collected by him and paid 
into the county treasur}'’. 

Sec. 29. The Eecorder of each county in this State shall be al¬ 
lowed for all his services the following compensation, and none other: 
For the first ten thousand population of his county, or less, as shown 
by the last preceding United States census, he shall be allowed and 
paid at the rate of ninety dollars ($90) a year for each thousand popu¬ 
lation; and for all population over ten thousand, at the rate of fifty 
dollars ($50) a year for each thousand. In addition to such salary, 
such Eecorder shall be allowed and paid a sum equal to ten per cent, 
of all fees and charges taxed by him for his own services and collected 
by him and paid into the county treasury. 

Sec. 30. The Treasurer of each county in this State shall be al¬ 
lowed for all of his services the following compensation, and none 
other: For the first ten thousand population of his county, or less, 
as shown by the last preceding United States census, he shall be al¬ 
lowed and paid at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) a year for 
each thousand population; and for all population over ten thousand, 
at the rate of sixty dollars ($60) a year for each thousand. In addi¬ 
tion to such salary, such Treasurer shall be allowed and paid a sum 
equal to six per cent, of all delinquent taxes collected by him; pro¬ 
vided, however, that the fees allowed by law for ^hlemand’^ and ^devy’^ 
in collection of delinquent taxes, shall belong wholly to the officer 
or person appointed by the Treasurer to make such demand or levy. 

Sec. 31. When any of said county officers shall collect fees taxed 
by any of his predecessors, for services rendered by such predecessor, 
such officer so collecting such fees shall make separate quarterly report 
of the same to the County Treasurer, like in all respects to the report 
made of fees collected for his own services, giving also the name of 
such predecessor and paying the fees so collected into the county 
treasury; and the Treasurer shall give the officer collecting and paying 
over such fees a receipt therefor, in which shall be stated the name 
both of the officer who taxed the fees and. also of the officer who has so 
collected and paid them over. Such receipt when filed with the Audi¬ 
tor, shall entitle such taxing officer and such collecting officer each to 
a warrant for a sum equal to five per cent, of the moneys so collected 
and paid into the county treasury: Provided, That this section shall 


330 


have no application to fees tacxed previous to the taking effect of this 
act, except that the officer collecting and paying into the county treas¬ 
ury any fees taxed prior to the taking effect of this act shall be en¬ 
titled to a warrant for a sum equal to five per cent, of the amount 
collected and paid by him into the county treasury. And provided 
further, That no officer shall be entitled to any percentage of fees 
taxed and collected for services of any person holding another office. 

Sec. 32. All salaries and compensation for services due to the Clerk 
of the Circuit Court, Sheriff, Auditor, Recorder and Treasurer, shall 
be paid to such officers quarterly out of the county treasury, on the 
first Monday in January, April, July and October of each year, upon 
warrants issued by the County Auditor, and not othenvise. Before 
any such warrant for quarterly payment shall be issued to any of said 
county officers such officer shall file with the Auditor the receipt issued 
to him by the Treasurer for fees collected and paid into the county 
treasury for such quarter; and, as to the Auditor himself, also the 
statement issued to him by the Treasurer, showing the amount of in¬ 
terest collected on school funds for such quarter; and, as to the Treas¬ 
urer, also the statement made out for himself, showing the amount of 
delinquent taxes collected for such quarter; all of which receipts and 
statements shall be filed and carefully preserved by the Auditor. And 
it shall be unlawful for the County Treasurer to make payment on any 
such warrant in favor of any of said county officers unless the quar¬ 
terly report hereinbefore provided for has been filed with the Ti’eas- 
urer by such officer and the receipt and statement aforesaid issued to 
him by such Treasurer. 

Sec. 33. Blank books and other supplies for the offices of the 
Clerk of the Circuit Court, Sheriff, Auditor, Recorder and Treasurer, 
as also fuel, lights, furniture and other things needed for the court 
house and jail, including food, clothing and bedding for the prisoners 
in the jail or workhouse, shall be furnished on estimates made to and 
allowed by the County Council, and on contracts made by the County 
Commissioners, as now provided by law or as may hereafter be pro¬ 
vided by law. 

Sec. 34. All necessary expenses incurred by any of said county 
officers, in the discharge, outside of his county, of any duties required 
of him by law as such officer, shall be included in the annual estimates 
of such officer made to the County Council, and shall be audited on 
verified, itemized statements made by him to the Board of County 
Commissioners, and when allowed by such Board shall be paid out of' 
the county treasury on warrants issued by the County Auditor. 





331 


Sec. 35. Should any officer named in this act refuse or fail to pay 
over to the proper person, when and as in this act required, any 
moneys coming into his hands as such officer, the same may be recov¬ 
ered by suit on his bond, brought in the name of the State, on the rela¬ 
tion of the Attorney-General or of the proper prosecuting attorney. 
In case of the failure of the Attorney-General or the prosecuting at¬ 
torney to bring such suit for thirty days after the time when such 
moneys should have been paid over by such defaulting officer, then 
such suit may be brought by any taxpayer on his own relation. In 
such suit, interest shall be recovered from the date of the default, also 
all necessary expenses including reasonable attorney’s fees. Besides 
the recovery provided for in this section any officer or other person, 
whether named in this act or not, who violates, or aids in the viola¬ 
tion of, any provision of this act, shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned 
in the State’s prison not less than two years nor more than twenty-one 
years, fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and dis¬ 
franchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or 
profit for any determinate period; or he may be punished by imprison¬ 
ment in the county jail, not exceeding six months, fined in any sum 
not exceeding one hundred dollars, and disfranchised and rendered 
incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate 
period. 

Sec. 36. All laws and parts of laws in.conflict with any of the pro¬ 
visions of this act are hereby repealed. 


B. 


A BILL FOR 

An act to amend section seventeen of “An act concerning county business,” 
approved March 3, 1899. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of 
Indiana, That section seventeen of ^“^An Act concerning county busi¬ 
ness/' approved March 3, 1899, be amended so as to read as follows: 

Section 17. Every estimate required by the preceding section to 
be prepared by any county officer of money required for his office shall 
embrace in items separate from each other each of the following 
matters: 

First. Salary of the officer as fixed by law if payable out of the 
county treasury; if not, an estimate of the number of days or length 
of time of service required, or other facts-, showing basis of the es¬ 
timated amount of compensation for the year for the officer at the rate 
fixed by law. 

Second. The estimated amount of deputy hire, if any such is under 
the ]aw payable out of the county treasury. 

Third. Supplies for the office if payment for any of such can be 
made out of the county treasury under the law, whether with or with¬ 
out an order of the board of county commissioners to that effect, item¬ 
izing particularly the quantity of each kind of supplies, and the prob¬ 
able cost thereof. 

Fourth. Any and all other expenses of the office which are by law 
payable out of the county treasury with or without an order of the 
board of county commissioners to that effect, itemizing and specifying 
with the greatest possible particularity all of such expenses. 

Provided, That when a per diem is allowed by law to be paid out of 
the county treasury to any County Assessor, Township Assessor, 
County Superintendent, Ti’uant Officer, County Surveyor, or other 
officer, the number of days’ service for which any such officer, or any, 
of his deputies or clerks, shall be allowed, shall be fixed by the County 
Council at their annual meeting, and this shall constitute the entire 
com 2 >ensation to be paid out of the county treasury to any of such 
officers, deputies or clerks^ for all the services of such office. 


-332- 



c 


A BILL FOR 

An act fixing the number and compensation of Justices of the Peace and Con 
stables in townships containing therein the principal part of cities of not 
less than ten thousand population, according to the last preceding United 
States census, prescribing certain duties of Justices of the Peace, Con¬ 
stables and Trustees in such townships, providing penalties for the viola¬ 
tion of said act and repealing all laws in conflict therewith. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State 
of Indiana, That in every township of this State containing within 
its limits the principal part of any city of not less than ten thousand 
(10,000) population, according to the last preceding United States 
census, the number of Justices of the Peace and the number of Con¬ 
stables shall be two each and no more; Provided, That the Justices 
of the Peace and the Constables now in office or elected in such town¬ 
ships shall hold their offices during the terms for which they have been 
elected; and, provided further, that in any township containing within 
its limits the principal part of any city of not less than one hundred 
thousand (100,000) population, according to the last preceding United 
States census, the Board of County Commissioners may fix the number 
of Justices of the Peace and Constables in any number not exceeding 
three (3) each. 

Sec. 2. The Justices of the Peace elected in such townships after 
the taking effect of this act, shall liold their offices in such places in 
their respective townships as may be agreed to by the Boards of Com¬ 
missioners of their respective counties, and such Justices and Consta¬ 
bles shall attend to the duties of tlieir said offices every day (Sun¬ 
days and legal holidays excepted) during such hours as the business 
of their offices may require. Every action brought before any such 
Justice of the Peace, together with the proceedings and judgment 
thereon, and a statement of all fines imposed and of all fines and fees 
collected shall be set out upon his docket and be subject to the inspec¬ 
tion of any citizen or taxpayer. 


-333- 



334 


Sec. 3. It shall he the duty of the Justices of the Peace and Con¬ 
stables of such townships to tax and charge for the use of their respec¬ 
tive townships, and to keep in proper books in the offices of said Jus¬ 
tices, an accurate account of all fees and charges as now fixed by law, 
or which may hereafter be fixed by law, and of all moneys charged or 
received by them respectively for any and all services rendered by 
them as such officers. And such Constables, immediately after making^ 
any collections or receiving any fees for any services, shall pay the 
same over to their respective Justices of the Peace who shall at once 
enter the same upon said books, showing the Constable by whom, the 
person from whom and the cause for which such collections were made. 
And on the first Monday in each month the said Justices of the Peace 
shall each make a sworn report to their respective township trustees, 
showing the amount of all fees and charges collected during the pre¬ 
ceding month, and the date when and the persons from whom col¬ 
lected. Thereupon the whole amount of all moneys so reported as 
collected by each of said officers for their services shall be paid into 
the hands of their respective township trustees and be credited to the 
general fund of the township. Provided, That all fines and forfeitures 
imposed and collected and other moneys due the State or county shall 
be reported and paid over by such Justices of the Peace to the proper 
officers as now provided by law. On receiving such quarterly reports 
and the moneys so returned as collected, each of such township trus¬ 
tees shall file and preserve such report and shall give to the respective 
Justices of the Peace receipts for such moneys, showing in such re¬ 
ceipts the whole amount paid in by each of such J ustices of the Peace 
respectively, naming them, and the part thereof collected and paid 
to such J ustices of the Peace by any Constable or Constables, naming 
them. The receipts so given by each township trustee shall be at¬ 
tached by the Justice of the Peace to his docket and be subject to 
inspection by any citizen. Until the report herein provided for has 
been made, and the money shown in such report has been paid over 
to the township trustee, it shall not be lawful for such trustee to pay 
to such Justice of the Peace or Constable any salary or other compen¬ 
sation out of the township treasury. The township trustee is author¬ 
ized to administer the oath required to be made to such quarterly 
report. 

Sec. 4. All such Justices of the Peace and Constables elected and 
qualified in such townships after the taking effect of this act, in lieu 
of all fees and other compensation, shall receive the following com¬ 
pensation for their services, and none other: In townships containing 
the principal part of any city of ten thousand (10,000) population or 


335 


over, and less than twenty-five thousand (25,000), according to the last 
preceding United States census, each Justice of the Peace shall receive 
eight hundred dollars ($800) per annum, and each Constable five hun¬ 
dred dollars ($500) per annum; in townships containing the principal 
part of any city of twenty-five thousand (25,000) population or over, 
and less than fifty thousand (50,000), according to the last preceding 
United States census, each Justice of the Peace shall receive nine hun¬ 
dred dollars ($900) per annum and each Constable six hundred dollars 
($600) per annum; in townships containing the principal part of any 
city of fifty thousand (50,000) population, or over, and less than one 
hundred thousand (100,000), according to the last preceding United 
States census, each Justice of the Peace shall receive one thousand 
dollars ($1,000) per annum, and each Constable seven hundred dollars 
{$700) per annum; and in townships containing the principal part of 
any city of one hundred thousand (100,000) population, or over, ac¬ 
cording to the last preceding United States census, each Justice of the 
Peace shall receive fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) per annum, 
and each Constahle one thousand dollars ($1,000) per annum. Such 
compensation to such Justices of the Peace and Constables shall he 
payable monthly by the respective Trustees of such townships, on 
the first Monday of each month, out of the township treasury. In 
addition to such salaries such Justices of the Peace and such Con¬ 
stables shall each be allowed by such Township Trustee, and paid 
out of the township treasury a sum equal to five per cent, of all fees 
and charges taxed by him for his own services and collected and 
paid by him into the township treasury for the preceding month. 
In case any Justice of the Peace or Constahle shall collect and there 
shall he paid into the township treasury, any fees taxed by any pred¬ 
ecessor of such officer, then two and one-half per cent, of the fees 
so collected and paid in shall he paid to the officer making such col¬ 
lection and payment, and two and one-half per cent, to the ofiicer who 
taxed such fees. 

Sec. 5. Should any officer named in this act refuse or fail to pay 
over to the proper person, when and as in this act required, any moneys 
coming into his hands, as such officer, the same may he recovered hy 
suit on his bond, brought in the name of the State, on the relation of 
the Attorney-General or of the proper prosecuting attorney for the 
use of the party to whom such moneys should have been paid. 
In case of the failure of the Attorney-General or the prosecut¬ 
ing attoimey to bring such suit for thirty days after the time when 
such moneys should have been paid over by such defaulting officer, 
then such suit may be brought by the township trustee or any tax- 


336 


payer on his own relation. In such suit interest shall be recovered 
from the date of the default, also all necessary expenses, including 
reasonable attorney's fees. Besides the recovery provided for in this 
section, any officer or other person, whether named in this act or not, 
who violates, or aids in the violation of, any provision of this act, sliall, 
upon conviction, bo imprisoned in the State’s prison not less than one 
year nor more than fourteen years, fined in any sum not exceeding 
five hundred dollars, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of 
holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period; or he 
may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, not exceeding 
six months, fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars and 
disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or 
profit for any determinate period. 

Sec. 6. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act, includr 
ing ‘^An Act prescribing the number, certain duties and compensa¬ 
tion of Justices of the Peace in townships having therein the principal 
part of citie§ of not less than 35,000 and not more than 60,000 popula¬ 
tion, according to the United States census of 1890, and providing 
penalties for the violation thereof,” approved March 6, 1899, are 
hereby repealed, except as in this act otherwise provided; but such 
repeal shall not affect the compensation or duties of Justices of the 
Peace and Constables elected before the taking effect of this act, all 
of which officers shall continue to be governed by the laws now in 
force. 


D. 


Section ten of an act “ concerning township business,” approved February 
27, 1899, reads as follows: 

. “Sec. 10.. The Township Trustees serving under this act shall re¬ 
ceive for their services the compensation now or hereafter fixed by 
law, provided, that where a per diem is allowed by law the number of 
days’ service for which the Trustee is allowed shall be fixed and al¬ 
lowed by the Advisory Board at their annual meeting, and this shall 
constitute the entire compensation of such Trustee for all the duties of 
his office.” 


22—F. AND S. Com. 


-337- 



A BILL FOR 


An act to compensate certain Circuit Judges therein named, for expenses in. 
curred outside the limits of their respective counties, and declaring an 
emergency. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of 
Indiana^ That every Judge of any circuit composed of two or more 
counties, in addition to his salary as fixed by law, shall be entitled to 
receive quarterly from the State treasury, on verified, itemized bills 
filed with the Auditor of State, the amount of the actual necessary 
expenses incurred by him in holding court in any county of his circuit, 
except the county of his residence. 

Sec. 2. Whereas an emergency exists for the inmiediate taking 
effect of this act, therefore the same shall be in force from and after 
its passage. 



INDEX 


Acts— PAGE. 

From 1816 to 1850. 17 

1850 to 1871. 18 

1871. 20 

1875. 22 

1879. 23 

1891. 25 

1895. 26 

.1899. 27 

Amendment Constitution. 24 

Validity Tested. 21 

Analysis of Tables— 

Assessors, County. 108 

Assessors, Township. 117 

Auditor, County. 80 

Clerk, County. 49 

Deductions.46, 100, 292 

Recorder, County. 49 

Sheriff, County. 49 

Treasurer, County. 80 

Trustees, Township. 112 

Specific by Counties— 

Adams. 161 

Allen.... 163 

Bartholomew. 165 

Benton. 166 

Blackford. 167 

Boone. 168 

Brown. 170 

Carroll. 171 

Cass. 172 

Clark. 174 

Clay. 176 

Clinton. 177 

Crawford. 179 

Daviess. 180 

Dearborn. 182 

Decatur. 184 

Dekalb. 185 

Delaware. 186 

Dubois. 188 

Elkhart. 190 

Fayette. . 191 

-. 339 - 











































340 


Analysis of Tables—Specific by Counties—Continued. page. 

Flojd. 192 

Fountain. 194 

Franklin. 196 

Fulton. 197 

Gibson. 199 

Grant.'.. 200 

Greene. 201 

Hamilton. 202 

Hancock. 204 

Harrison. 205 

Hendricks. 207 

Henry . 208 

Howard. 209 

Huntington. 210 

Jackson. 212 

Jasper . 213 

Jay. 214 

.Jefferson. 215 

.Jennings. 216 

.Johnson. 217 

Knox . 219 

Kosciusko . 220 

Lagrange. 222 

Lake. 223 

Laporte . 225 

Lawrence . 227 

Madison.'. 228 

Marion. 230 

Marshall. 2.33 

Martin. 234 

Miami . 236 

Monroe. 237 

Montgomery. 239 

Morgan. 241 

Newton. 242 

Noble. 243 

Ohio. 244 

Orange. 245 

Owen. 247 

Parke. 248 

Perry . 249 

Pike. 250 

Porter., 251 

Posey .. 253 

Pulaski . 254 

Putnam. 255 

Randolph . 256 

Ripley. 258 

Rush.... . 259 

Scott. 261 





















































341 


Analysis of Tables—Specific by Counties—Continued. tAGK. 

Shelby. 262 

Spencer. 263 

Starke. 265 

Steuben. 266 

St. Joseph. 267 

Sullivan. 268 

Switzerland. * . 269 

Tippecanoe. 270 

Tipton. 271 

Union. 272 

Vanderburgh. 273 

Vermillion . 274 

Vigo. 275 

Wabash. 278 

Warren. 279 

Warrick. 280 

Washington. . 281 

Wayne. 282 

Wells. 283 

White. 284 

Whitley. 285 

Summary. 291 

Appendix, Bills Recommended. 321 

Assessors, County. 107 

Assessors, Township. 117 

Auditor, County— 

Analysis. 80 

Rank of Payment, etc. 97 

Table... 75 

Bills Recommended (see Appendix). 

Bookkeeping. 48 

Clerk, County— 

Analysis. 49 

Deficiency in Salary. 129 

Fees, Statistics of . 31 

Fees, Surplus of. 132 

Per Diem and Allowances. 122 

Per Diem, Use of. 129 

Rank as to Salary, etc .. .. 143 

Supreme Court. 302 

Comments, General. 307 

Commission, Organization of. 7 

Compensation Summary. 291 

Conclusions and Recommendations. 299 

Councilmen, County, Opinions of. 287 

County Officers, Minor. 287 

Deductions from Tables.46, 100, 292 

Earnings Under Old System. 47 















































342 


. PAGE, 

Fees of State Officers...•. 301 

Fees and Salaries, Other States. 8-16 

Fees and Salaries, County Officers. 304 

Fixed Salaries. 321 

Fixing Salaries, Rules for. 305 

Introductory./... 5 

Investigation, Line of— 

Questions. 28 

Statistics of Fees, Assessor, County. 108 

Statistics of Fees, Assessor, Township. 117 

Statistics of Fees, Auditor. 75 

Statistics of Fees, Clerk. 31 

Statistics of Fees, Recorder. 41 

Statistics of Fees, Sheriff. 36 

Statistics of Fees, Treasurer. 77 

Statistics of Fees, Trustees. 112 

Justices of the Peace. 313 

Legislation (see Acts). 

Organization of Commission. 7 

Officers, County, Minor. 287 

Offices, Minor. 312 

Opinions County Councilmen. 287 

Payments to State Officers. 302 

Payments, Variation of. 104 

Rank as to Salaries and Collections — 

Auditor ;*. 97 

Clerk. 143 

Recorder. 156 

Sheriff.'. 152 

Treasurer. 97 

Population, etc. 101 

Recorder, County— 

Analysis. 49 

Fees. 41 

Fees, Surplus. 132 

Rank, etc. 156 

Sheriff, County— 

Analysis.... 49 

Deficiency in Salary. 129 

Fees. 36 

Per Diem, etc. 122 

Per Diem, Use of. 129 

Rank, ete. 152 

Statistics (see Analysis). 

Summary of Compensation. 291 









































343 

Tables (see Analysis). 

Treasurer, County— page. 

Analysis. 80 

Fees, etc. 77 

Rank, etc. 97 

Trustees, Township. Ill 









• • • 

■ t 



♦ .1 

"V ** 

^ * 




“nr . 



- V. 





r ^ 




e' 


' . >1 - 

• • 

V,* . 

' 1 

^ •» 



• 4 •» 


r / 

% ' > 





.{ 


•V 


r 








y 



N 



• 1 


V 









1 




I 







1 

• t 

\ 

\ 


t 


r 


* 


t 



t 

. # 


* .f 





• ' . 


« 


r ' 




✓ . 




■V 


» r'' 


j 


( 


» 


i» 







f 






# 


• * <• ’ 


0 • 



/ 

•f'V 

• » f 



.'/ 


-rf- 


f 


•'; 


r. ' 



‘ •# • 


t 

/ 


> 


4< 

4 


1 


'' t 



,< ' • 


•.’*J{ 




47 : 


i 


9 


/ 


4 - 

• »‘ 


k 


T 



il 

•i 



/ 


% 


• 4 


* 


• * 




« 

* 



<• 


I 


L . ,.• 

# .. • 



4 


I « 




-V 




/ 


j 


» 

t 


4 




( 

I 


« 


« 



\ 


> 


• . 


f 



« 

/ 




# 



’ • 

I . 





. I 




/ 


•v 









■ t 


\ 


• « 


4 • 


« 




\ i 


>. 


' » 

ft 



^ , - 




i_‘ 


:s 



^ 

4 ■ 


i 


i 


A 



* 1 


4 



v;' 


•n 


^ A* 


■ ;v’•^^•>'■'7*'. >.;•■ '■ -'tv'' !'tK»S:''--':?‘?c ■■ ■ 

i:-^. 1 : 




• 








w<w I V ^ 









:» 


'•» 


1 ~jj 

t-rw 




-•■.•••-,. -w,,>■••* 


, ■ 


<k- ; 


^ * ■ •^ ** J ' T . \ • »t3,* 

r- '. .VV ^■.*v-tx. ,■• '• •• 




r. ^f- 




SJ- 




■^•t?-; v- ■ .'V -v^V^';■■■ '' ■ • ■ ■ ■ - ,, ■ 


1* '• »* I 

•• . ^ 

<* 1^1 . .r*\ • 

f ' ■ '^■' , * 


:{: 



'.... y^-' i, ^ -. y '•'<:•■. > ■ /' -A • ■, . '■ 

o-• '■'■'• •■ • '4rf‘ ‘ 'i ^^ *'i’''' V' '*>»' ■ ■'‘--to ‘ •■ -‘' ^ 


\ 

% 




» 

» • . • 





^^>^'.Ly^-r:--:-y:':, 


£. / 




w -r V. 


^ 'J-1‘^ 


r-c 






I .' 


ft ■' i ’•' -N ■ ' ' ' i•■'•'■' *A V*' ;- ’ ■<' '■*»»* • ' f, 




^ ». 



»V. 





* -^A. 



■:, 

■PW • '■ J^. * /'.- & -1 .* .<■'• 

..'-i ■’:- - ^ 

::-v 

^ ■-- *r..J";* •.: ^ V ■’ „ 

' ■ ''■ ^.-i-2*t55f*' 

»^ v‘ rT •• r - t •» ^- • 


, « 




Nt . • 


•^f V 


' * J ^‘‘.’ ^ * E- ^ 

"t*:: • ^ ■■ 


” ■ V ^4' ^; i._ -. 

yy-ym ^yl--w^'y^Sm 



. ^ 


• • • ft • r^ • « • 

•<!*• ' '■ •'■ 

■ '* -5 *a 










'•■ X' :* •■ * 
r. \** 


■<i4. 


«. *. *1 
'• •^' ■ t f 

. . t ; -' ' « 


y'i • J . . 






I WA-v. / > 

si’"., :' :.'■ 





















